# Official Journal C 142/23 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 142 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6123 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 142

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6123 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 142/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 142/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 142/02 | Case C-64/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 19(1) TEU — Legal remedies — Effective judicial protection — Judicial independence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration — Budgetary austerity measures) | 2 |
| 2018/C 142/03 | Case C-266/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement — Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol — Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol — Jurisdiction — Interpretation — Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law — Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto) | 3 |
| 2018/C 142/04 | Case C-297/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners — Freedom of establishment — Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners — Protection of public health — Proportionality) | 4 |
| 2018/C 142/05 | Case C-301/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) — Market Economy Treatment (MET) — Concept of significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) — Tax incentives) | 4 |
| 2018/C 142/06 | Case C-307/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 131 — Article 146(1)(b) — Article 147 — Exemptions on exportation — Article 273 — Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers) | 5 |
| 2018/C 142/07 | Case C-387/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 183 — Refund of overpaid VAT — Late refund — Amount of default interest due under national law — Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person — Whether permissible — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty) | 6 |
| 2018/C 142/08 | Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion) | 6 |
| 2018/C 142/09 | Case C-418/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — Article 57(2) and (3) — Article 64 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 22(2) — Rule 40(6) — Invalidity proceedings — Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Burden of proof — Rejection of the applications — Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence — Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Referral — Consequences) | 7 |
| 2018/C 142/10 | Case C-518/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ZPT AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 — Article 35 TFEU — De minimis aid in the form of tax relief — National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief) | 7 |
| 2018/C 142/11 | Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 51 — Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders — Directive 2004/17/EC — Clarification of tenders — National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty — Principles relating to the award of public works contracts — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality) | 8 |
| 2018/C 142/12 | Case C-558/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession) | 9 |
| 2018/C 142/13 | Case C-577/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scope — Article 2(1) — Annex I — Activities subject to the trading scheme — Production of polymers — Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation — Application for free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020) | 9 |
| 2018/C 142/14 | Case C-672/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — TVA Directive — Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property — Right of option available to taxable persons — Implementation by the Member States — Deduction of input tax — Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions — Adjustment of the initial deduction — Not permissible) | 10 |
| 2018/C 142/15 | Case C-3/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Sporting Odds Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Article 4(3) TEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Restrictions — Games of chance — National legislation — Operation of certain kinds of games of chance by the State — Exclusivity — Licensing system for other kinds of games of chance — Requirement of a licence — Administrative penalty) | 11 |
| 2018/C 142/16 | Case C-9/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services — Whether or not there is a public contract — Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions — Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators) | 12 |
| 2018/C 142/17 | Case C-46/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age — National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension) | 13 |
| 2018/C 142/18 | Case C-76/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties — Article 30 TFEU — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Charge applied to exported petroleum products — Charge not passed on to the consumer — Tax burden for the taxpayer — Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer) | 13 |
| 2018/C 142/19 | Case C-117/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III — Environmental impact assessment — Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment — Annulment — Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment) | 14 |
| 2018/C 142/20 | Case C-289/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification — Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures — Rights of the debtor — No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought) | 15 |
| 2018/C 142/21 | Case C-119/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk borne entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Main subject matter of the loan agreement) | 16 |
| 2018/C 142/22 | Case C-126/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) — Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract — Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Scope of the term drafted in plain, intelligible language — Partial or total invalidity of the contract) | 17 |
| 2018/C 142/23 | Joined Cases C-142/17 and C-143/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi (C-142/17), Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 2006/54/EC — National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men) | 18 |
| 2018/C 142/24 | Case C-233/17 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list) | 18 |
| 2018/C 142/25 | Case C-336/17 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative Ethics for Animals and Kids — Protection of stray animals — Psychological effects on adults and children — Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Article 4(3)) | 19 |
| 2018/C 142/26 | Case C-529/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO | 19 |
| 2018/C 142/27 | Case C-693/17 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2017 by BMB sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2017 in Case T-695/15: BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 20 |
| 2018/C 142/28 | Case C-701/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria | 21 |
| 2018/C 142/29 | Case C-7/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social | 21 |
| 2018/C 142/30 | Case C-10/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission | 22 |
| 2018/C 142/31 | Case C-13/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — Sole-Mizo Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága | 23 |
| 2018/C 142/32 | Case C-29/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L. | 24 |
| 2018/C 142/33 | Case C-30/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L. | 25 |
| 2018/C 142/34 | Case C-38/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka | 25 |
| 2018/C 142/35 | Case C-39/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission | 26 |
| 2018/C 142/36 | Case C-41/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2018 — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli | 27 |
| 2018/C 142/37 | Case C-44/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L. | 27 |
| 2018/C 142/38 | Case C-46/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto | 28 |
| 2018/C 142/39 | Case C-47/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2018 — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH | 29 |
| 2018/C 142/40 | Case C-53/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) | 30 |
| 2018/C 142/41 | Case C-54/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo | 31 |
| 2018/C 142/42 | Case C-60/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet | 32 |
| 2018/C 142/43 | Case C-74/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd | 32 |
| 2018/C 142/44 | Case C-89/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet | 33 |
| 2018/C 142/45 | Case C-91/18: Action brought on 8 February 2018 European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 34 |
| 2018/C 142/46 | Case C-102/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch | 35 |
| 2018/C 142/47 | Case C-116/18: Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania | 36 |
| 2018/C 142/48 | Case C-131/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler | 36 |
| 2018/C 142/49 | Case C-144/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union | 37 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 142/50 | Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Rose Vision v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement concerning the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects — Deadline for providing the final financial audit report — Financial audits finding anomalies in the implementation of the projects — Suspension of payments — Confidentiality of financial audits — Eligibility of the costs declared — Non-contractual liability — Repayment of the sums advanced — Harm caused by listing in the early warning system) | 39 |
| 2018/C 142/51 | Case T-292/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Admissibility — Misuse of procedure — Conflict of interests — Duty of diligence — Loss of opportunity) | 40 |
| 2018/C 142/52 | Case T-316/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Justification for the public contribution — Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 — Time-limit not respected) | 41 |
| 2018/C 142/53 | Case T-402/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme — Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Time limit exceeded) | 41 |
| 2018/C 142/54 | Case T-85/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 42 |
| 2018/C 142/55 | Case T-140/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Authority of the Secretary-General — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Equal treatment) | 42 |
| 2018/C 142/56 | Case T-438/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CIPRIANI — Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 43 |
| 2018/C 142/57 | Case T-462/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission (FEAGA — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Legitimate Expectations — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Proportionality) | 44 |
| 2018/C 142/58 | Case T-624/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Electa una via — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Political rights — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality) | 44 |
| 2018/C 142/59 | Case T-629/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 45 |
| 2018/C 142/60 | Case T-665/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 46 |
| 2018/C 142/61 | Case T-764/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Annual salary and bonus review — Lawfulness of the guidelines — Calculation method — Taking into account of sickness leave — Taking into account of activities of a staff representative — Principle of non-discrimination) | 46 |
| 2018/C 142/62 | Case T-843/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Foto Paradies — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 47 |
| 2018/C 142/63 | Case T-855/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA (REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Exceeding of financial ceilings — Concept of linked enterprise) | 48 |
| 2018/C 142/64 | Case T-6/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA — Earlier international figurative mark LABELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 48 |
| 2018/C 142/65 | Case T-103/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG — Earlier national word mark NORMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430)) | 49 |
| 2018/C 142/66 | Case T-159/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 — Earlier national figurative mark SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 50 |
| 2018/C 142/67 | Case T-230/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark RSTUDIO — Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) | 50 |
| 2018/C 142/68 | Case T-35/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI) | 51 |
| 2018/C 142/69 | Case T-41/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission | 52 |
| 2018/C 142/70 | Case T-64/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission | 52 |
| 2018/C 142/71 | Case T-81/18: Action brought on 09/02/2018 — Barata v Parliament | 53 |
| 2018/C 142/72 | Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission | 55 |
| 2018/C 142/73 | Case T-95/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament | 55 |
| 2018/C 142/74 | Case T-104/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA | 57 |
| 2018/C 142/75 | Case T-106/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN) | 58 |
| 2018/C 142/76 | Case T-117/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH) | 58 |
| 2018/C 142/77 | Case T-118/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH) | 59 |
| 2018/C 142/78 | Case T-119/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH) | 60 |
| 2018/C 142/79 | Case T-120/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH) | 61 |
| 2018/C 142/80 | Case T-121/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH) | 62 |
| 2018/C 142/81 | Case T-122/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO) | 63 |
| 2018/C 142/82 | Case T-123/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart) | 64 |
| 2018/C 142/83 | Case T-126/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission | 65 |
| 2018/C 142/84 | Case T-127/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission | 66 |
| 2018/C 142/85 | Case T-133/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs) | 66 |
| 2018/C 142/86 | Case T-134/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH) | 67 |
| 2018/C 142/87 | Case T-139/18: Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission | 68 |
| 2018/C 142/88 | Case T-157/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission | 69 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 142/02

Case C-64/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 19(1) TEU — Legal remedies — Effective judicial protection — Judicial independence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration — Budgetary austerity measures)

2

2018/C 142/03

Case C-266/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement — Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol — Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol — Jurisdiction — Interpretation — Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law — Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto)

3

2018/C 142/04

Case C-297/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners — Freedom of establishment — Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners — Protection of public health — Proportionality)

4

2018/C 142/05

Case C-301/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) — Market Economy Treatment (MET) — Concept of significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) — Tax incentives)

4

2018/C 142/06

Case C-307/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 131 — Article 146(1)(b) — Article 147 — Exemptions on exportation — Article 273 — Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers)

5

2018/C 142/07

Case C-387/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 183 — Refund of overpaid VAT — Late refund — Amount of default interest due under national law — Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person — Whether permissible — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty)

6

2018/C 142/08

Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

6

2018/C 142/09

Case C-418/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — Article 57(2) and (3) — Article 64 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 22(2) — Rule 40(6) — Invalidity proceedings — Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Burden of proof — Rejection of the applications — Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence — Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Referral — Consequences)

7

2018/C 142/10

Case C-518/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ZPT AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 — Article 35 TFEU — De minimis aid in the form of tax relief — National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief)

7

2018/C 142/11

Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 51 — Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders — Directive 2004/17/EC — Clarification of tenders — National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty — Principles relating to the award of public works contracts — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality)

8

2018/C 142/12

Case C-558/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession)

9

2018/C 142/13

Case C-577/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scope — Article 2(1) — Annex I — Activities subject to the trading scheme — Production of polymers — Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation — Application for free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020)

9

2018/C 142/14

Case C-672/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — TVA Directive — Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property — Right of option available to taxable persons — Implementation by the Member States — Deduction of input tax — Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions — Adjustment of the initial deduction — Not permissible)

10

2018/C 142/15

Case C-3/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Sporting Odds Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Article 4(3) TEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Restrictions — Games of chance — National legislation — Operation of certain kinds of games of chance by the State — Exclusivity — Licensing system for other kinds of games of chance — Requirement of a licence — Administrative penalty)

11

2018/C 142/16

Case C-9/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services — Whether or not there is a public contract — Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions — Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators)

12

2018/C 142/17

Case C-46/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age — National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension)

13

2018/C 142/18

Case C-76/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties — Article 30 TFEU — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Charge applied to exported petroleum products — Charge not passed on to the consumer — Tax burden for the taxpayer — Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer)

13

2018/C 142/19

Case C-117/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III — Environmental impact assessment — Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment — Annulment — Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment)

14

2018/C 142/20

Case C-289/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification — Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures — Rights of the debtor — No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought)

15

2018/C 142/21

Case C-119/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk borne entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Main subject matter of the loan agreement)

16

2018/C 142/22

Case C-126/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) — Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract — Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Scope of the term drafted in plain, intelligible language — Partial or total invalidity of the contract)

17

2018/C 142/23

Joined Cases C-142/17 and C-143/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi (C-142/17), Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 2006/54/EC — National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men)

18

2018/C 142/24

Case C-233/17 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list)

18

2018/C 142/25

Case C-336/17 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative Ethics for Animals and Kids — Protection of stray animals — Psychological effects on adults and children — Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Article 4(3))

19

2018/C 142/26

Case C-529/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO

19

2018/C 142/27

Case C-693/17 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2017 by BMB sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2017 in Case T-695/15: BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

20

2018/C 142/28

Case C-701/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria

21

2018/C 142/29

Case C-7/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

21

2018/C 142/30

Case C-10/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission

22

2018/C 142/31

Case C-13/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — Sole-Mizo Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

23

2018/C 142/32

Case C-29/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.

24

2018/C 142/33

Case C-30/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.

25

2018/C 142/34

Case C-38/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka

25

2018/C 142/35

Case C-39/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission

26

2018/C 142/36

Case C-41/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2018 — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli

27

2018/C 142/37

Case C-44/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.

27

2018/C 142/38

Case C-46/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

28

2018/C 142/39

Case C-47/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2018 — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH

29

2018/C 142/40

Case C-53/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

30

2018/C 142/41

Case C-54/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

31

2018/C 142/42

Case C-60/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet

32

2018/C 142/43

Case C-74/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd

32

2018/C 142/44

Case C-89/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

33

2018/C 142/45

Case C-91/18: Action brought on 8 February 2018 European Commission v Hellenic Republic

34

2018/C 142/46

Case C-102/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

35

2018/C 142/47

Case C-116/18: Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania

36

2018/C 142/48

Case C-131/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

36

2018/C 142/49

Case C-144/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union

37

General Court

2018/C 142/50

Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Rose Vision v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement concerning the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects — Deadline for providing the final financial audit report — Financial audits finding anomalies in the implementation of the projects — Suspension of payments — Confidentiality of financial audits — Eligibility of the costs declared — Non-contractual liability — Repayment of the sums advanced — Harm caused by listing in the early warning system)

39

2018/C 142/51

Case T-292/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Admissibility — Misuse of procedure — Conflict of interests — Duty of diligence — Loss of opportunity)

40

2018/C 142/52

Case T-316/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Justification for the public contribution — Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 — Time-limit not respected)

41

2018/C 142/53

Case T-402/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme — Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Time limit exceeded)

41

2018/C 142/54

Case T-85/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

42

2018/C 142/55

Case T-140/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Authority of the Secretary-General — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Equal treatment)

42

2018/C 142/56

Case T-438/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CIPRIANI — Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

43

2018/C 142/57

Case T-462/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission (FEAGA — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Legitimate Expectations — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Proportionality)

44

2018/C 142/58

Case T-624/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Electa una via — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Political rights — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality)

44

2018/C 142/59

Case T-629/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

45

2018/C 142/60

Case T-665/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001))

46

2018/C 142/61

Case T-764/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Annual salary and bonus review — Lawfulness of the guidelines — Calculation method — Taking into account of sickness leave — Taking into account of activities of a staff representative — Principle of non-discrimination)

46

2018/C 142/62

Case T-843/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Foto Paradies — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

47

2018/C 142/63

Case T-855/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA (REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Exceeding of financial ceilings — Concept of linked enterprise)

48

2018/C 142/64

Case T-6/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA — Earlier international figurative mark LABELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

48

2018/C 142/65

Case T-103/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG — Earlier national word mark NORMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430))

49

2018/C 142/66

Case T-159/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 — Earlier national figurative mark SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

50

2018/C 142/67

Case T-230/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark RSTUDIO — Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

50

2018/C 142/68

Case T-35/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI)

51

2018/C 142/69

Case T-41/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

52

2018/C 142/70

Case T-64/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission

52

2018/C 142/71

Case T-81/18: Action brought on 09/02/2018 — Barata v Parliament

53

2018/C 142/72

Case T-93/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission

55

2018/C 142/73

Case T-95/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

55

2018/C 142/74

Case T-104/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

57

2018/C 142/75

Case T-106/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)

58

2018/C 142/76

Case T-117/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)

58

2018/C 142/77

Case T-118/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH)

59

2018/C 142/78

Case T-119/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH)

60

2018/C 142/79

Case T-120/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)

61

2018/C 142/80

Case T-121/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)

62

2018/C 142/81

Case T-122/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)

63

2018/C 142/82

Case T-123/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)

64

2018/C 142/83

Case T-126/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

65

2018/C 142/84

Case T-127/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

66

2018/C 142/85

Case T-133/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)

66

2018/C 142/86

Case T-134/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

67

2018/C 142/87

Case T-139/18: Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission

68

2018/C 142/88

Case T-157/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission

69

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/1

---

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

(2018/C 142/01)

Last publication

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018

Past publications

OJ C 123, 9.4.2018

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018

OJ C 104, 19.3.2018

OJ C 94, 12.3.2018

OJ C 83, 5.3.2018

OJ C 72, 26.2.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

(Case C-64/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 19(1) TEU - Legal remedies - Effective judicial protection - Judicial independence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration - Budgetary austerity measures))

(2018/C 142/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude general salary-reduction measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, linked to requirements to eliminate an excessive budget deficit and to an EU financial assistance programme, from being applied to the members of the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors, Portugal).

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-266/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco - Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement - Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol - Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law - Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto))

(2018/C 142/03)

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: The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK

Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Intervener: Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

Operative part of the judgment

Since neither the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco nor the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco are applicable to the waters adjacent to the territory of Western Sahara, consideration of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of that agreement, Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion of that protocol, and Council Regulation (EU) No 1270/2013 of 15 November 2013 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under that protocol, in the light of Article 3(5) TEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

(Case C-297/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners - Freedom of establishment - Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners - Protection of public health - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO)

Defendant: Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

Operative part of the judgment

| (1) | Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which veterinary practitioners have an exclusive right to retail and use organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which veterinary practitioners have an exclusive right to retail and use organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products.

| (2) | Article 15 of Directive 2006/123 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which shares in establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products must be owned exclusively by one or more veterinary practitioners. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 15 of Directive 2006/123 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which shares in establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products must be owned exclusively by one or more veterinary practitioners.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd

(Case C-301/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives))

(2018/C 142/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

Intervener in support of the appellant: GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH, (represented by: A. Bochon, avocat, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T 586/14, EU:T:2016:154); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T 586/14, EU:T:2016:154);

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

2.

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

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-307/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 131 - Article 146(1)(b) - Article 147 - Exemptions on exportation - Article 273 - Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers))

(2018/C 142/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131, Article 146(1)(b) and Articles 147 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the context of a supply of goods for export to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the vendor, a taxable person, must have attained a minimum level of turnover in the preceding tax year, or have concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund VAT to travellers, where the mere failure to meet those conditions results in the definitive loss for the vendor of the exemption in relation to that supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV

(Case C-387/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Article 183 - Refund of overpaid VAT - Late refund - Amount of default interest due under national law - Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person - Whether permissible - Fiscal neutrality - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 142/07)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant: Nidera BV

Intervener: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the amount of interest normally payable under national law on overpaid value added tax which was not refunded in due time for reasons connected to circumstances not attributable to the taxable person, such as the high amount of that interest when compared with the amount of the overpaid value added tax, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 142/08)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD

(Case C-418/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Article 57(2) and (3) - Article 64 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2) - Rule 40(6) - Invalidity proceedings - Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Burden of proof - Rejection of the applications - Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence - Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO - Referral - Consequences))

(2018/C 142/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH (represented by: T. Lührig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Rezon OOD (represented by: P. Kanchev, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders mobile.de GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Rezon ODD. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders mobile.de GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Rezon ODD.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-518/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 - Article 35 TFEU - De minimis aid in the form of tax relief - National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief))

(2018/C 142/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ZPT’ AD

Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid.

| 2) | Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)

(Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 51 - Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders - Directive 2004/17/EC - Clarification of tenders - National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty - Principles relating to the award of public works contracts - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality))

(2018/C 142/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MA.T.I. SUD SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA (C-536/16)

Intervener: China Taiping Insurance Co. Ltd (C-523/16)

Defendants: Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)

Operative part of the judgment

European Union Law, in particular Article 51 of 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, the principles relating to the award of public contracts, including the principles of equal treatment and transparency referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation, under which the contracting authority may in a procedure for the award of a public contract, invite any tenderer whose tender is vitiated by serious irregularities within the meaning of that regulation to rectify its tender, subject to the payment of a financial penalty, provided that the amount of that penalty is consistent with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the referring court to determine.

However, those provisions and principles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation under which the contracting authority may require a tenderer, on payment of a financial penalty, to remedy the lack of a document which, according to the express provisions in the contract documentation, must result in the exclusion of that tenderer, or to eliminate the irregularities affecting its tender such that any corrections or changes would amount to a new tender.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — proceedings brought by Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

(Case C-558/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Succession and European Certificate of Succession - Scope - Ability to include the surviving spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession))

(2018/C 142/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

Other party: Sven Mahnkopf

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes, on the death of one of the spouses, a fixed allocation of the accrued gains by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate falls within the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-577/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Article 2(1) - Annex I - Activities subject to the trading scheme - Production of polymers - Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation - Application for free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020))

(2018/C 142/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an installation for the production of polymers, in particular the polymer polycarbonate, such as the installation at issue in the main proceedings, which obtains the heat needed for that production from a third-party installation, does not fall within the scope of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established by that directive, since it does not generate direct CO2 emissions.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-672/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - TVA Directive - Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property - Right of option available to taxable persons - Implementation by the Member States - Deduction of input tax - Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Not permissible))

(2018/C 142/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation which provides for the adjustment of the value added tax initially deducted on the ground that a property, for which the right to opt for taxation was exercised, is regarded as no longer being used by the taxable person for the purposes of its own taxed transactions, where that property has remained unoccupied for more than two years, even though it is established that the taxable person has sought to rent it during that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Sporting Odds Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása

(Case C-3/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Article 4(3) TEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Restrictions - Games of chance - National legislation - Operation of certain kinds of games of chance by the State - Exclusivity - Licensing system for other kinds of games of chance - Requirement of a licence - Administrative penalty))

(2018/C 142/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sporting Odds Ltd

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not, in principle, preclude a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance under which certain types of those games fall with the State monopoly system, while others fall within the system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if the referring court establishes that the rules restricting the freedom to provide services do, in fact, pursue the objectives relied on by the Member State concerned in a consistent and systematic manner; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not, in principle, preclude a dual system of organisation of the market for games of chance under which certain types of those games fall with the State monopoly system, while others fall within the system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if the referring court establishes that the rules restricting the freedom to provide services do, in fact, pursue the objectives relied on by the Member State concerned in a consistent and systematic manner;

| 2. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which the grant of a licence to organise online games of chance is reserved exclusively to operators of games of chance holding a concession for a casino situated on national territory, since that rule does not constitute a condition indispensable to the achievement of the desired objectives, and that there are less restrictive measures which are capable of attaining them; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which the grant of a licence to organise online games of chance is reserved exclusively to operators of games of chance holding a concession for a casino situated on national territory, since that rule does not constitute a condition indispensable to the achievement of the desired objectives, and that there are less restrictive measures which are capable of attaining them;

| 3. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of online games of chance, if it contains discriminatory rules with regard to operators established in other Member States or if it lays down rules which are not discriminatory but which are applied in a manner which is not transparent or are implemented in such a way as to prevent or hinder an application from certain tenderers established in other Member States;

| 4. | Article 56 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for the ex officio examination of the proportionality of measures restricting the freedom to provide serves within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU and which puts the burden of proof on the parties to the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 56 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for the ex officio examination of the proportionality of measures restricting the freedom to provide serves within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU and which puts the burden of proof on the parties to the proceedings;

| 5. | Article 56 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a Member State which has put in place restrictive legislation to provide evidence to prove the existence of objectives capable of justifying a restriction on a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty and its proportionality, in the absence of which the national court must draw all the inferences which result from such a failure; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 56 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a Member State which has put in place restrictive legislation to provide evidence to prove the existence of objectives capable of justifying a restriction on a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the FEU Treaty and its proportionality, in the absence of which the national court must draw all the inferences which result from such a failure;

| 6. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be held that a Member State has failed to satisfy its obligation to justify a restrictive measure because it has failed to provide an analysis of the effects of that measure on the date on which that measure was introduced into national law or the date of the examination of such a measure by the national court; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be held that a Member State has failed to satisfy its obligation to justify a restrictive measure because it has failed to provide an analysis of the effects of that measure on the date on which that measure was introduced into national law or the date of the examination of such a measure by the national court;

| 7. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a penalty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national rules introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to that article. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a penalty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for the infringement of national rules introducing a system of concessions and licences for the organisation of games of chance, if such national legislation proves to be contrary to that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maria Tirkkonen

(Case C-9/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Tendering procedure for public contracts for farm advisory services - Whether or not there is a public contract - Scheme for obtaining services open to any economic operator who satisfies previously established conditions - Scheme not subsequently open to other economic operators))

(2018/C 142/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Maria Tirkkonen

Intervener: Maaseutuvirasto

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a farm advisory scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, through which a public entity admits all the economic operators who meet the suitability requirements set out in the invitation to tender and who pass the examination referred to in that invitation to tender, even if no new operator can be admitted during the limited validity period of that scheme, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

(Case C-46/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age - National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension))

(2018/C 142/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hubertus John

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it makes the postponement of the date of termination of employment of workers who have reached the legal qualifying age for a retirement pension subject to the agreement of the employers given for a fixed term. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it makes the postponement of the date of termination of employment of workers who have reached the legal qualifying age for a retirement pension subject to the agreement of the employers given for a fixed term.

| 2) | Clause 5(1) of Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it permits the parties to a contract of employment, without additional requirements, indefinitely to postpone, by common agreement during the course of the employment relationship, including on more than one occasion if necessary, the agreed date of termination related to reaching the normal retirement age, simply because that worker, by reaching the normal retirement age, is entitled to a retirement pension. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Clause 5(1) of Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it permits the parties to a contract of employment, without additional requirements, indefinitely to postpone, by common agreement during the course of the employment relationship, including on more than one occasion if necessary, the agreed date of termination related to reaching the normal retirement age, simply because that worker, by reaching the normal retirement age, is entitled to a retirement pension.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

(Case C-76/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties - Article 30 TFEU - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Charge applied to exported petroleum products - Charge not passed on to the consumer - Tax burden for the taxpayer - Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer))

(2018/C 142/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 30 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the taxpayer, who in fact pays the charge having an equivalent effect contrary to that article, must be able to obtain reimbursement of the sums which it has paid by way of that charge, even in a situation where the payment mechanism for the charge has been designed in national legislation so that the charge is passed on to the consumer.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others

(Case C-117/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III - Environmental impact assessment - Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment - Annulment - Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment))

(2018/C 142/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Castelbellino

Defendants: Regione Marche, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Marche Servizio Infrastrutture Trasporti Energia — P. F. Rete Elettrica Regionale, Provincia di Ancona

Other party to the proceedings: Società Agricola 4 C S.S.

Operative part of the judgment

Where a project to increase the capacity of a plant for the production of electricity, such as the project at issue in the main proceedings, has not been subject to a preliminary examination of the need to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to national legislative provisions subsequently declared incompatible with Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment in that regard, EU law requires Member States to nullify the unlawful consequences of that breach and does not preclude that plant from being subject, after completion of the project, to a new assessment by the competent authorities for the purpose of verifying whether it complies with that directive and, where appropriate, to an environmental impact assessment, on condition that the national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them. The environmental impact of the project from the time of its completion must also be taken into account. Those authorities are entitled to take the view, on the basis of national provisions in force at the time they are required to give a decision, that such an environmental impact assessment is not required, in so far as those provisions are compatible with that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others

(Case C-289/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification - Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures - Rights of the debtor - No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought))

(2018/C 142/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/16

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA

(Case C-119/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency - Exchange rate risk borne entirely by the consumer - Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Main subject matter of the loan agreement))

(2018/C 142/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean

Defendants: SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term incorporated in a loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which has not been negotiated individually, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the loan must be repaid in that same currency, comes within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’, within the meaning of that provision, as that term lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term incorporated in a loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which has not been negotiated individually, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the loan must be repaid in that same currency, comes within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’, within the meaning of that provision, as that term lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract.

| 2. | Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a loan agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as a consequence of which the entire exchange rate risk is transferred to the borrower, and which is not drafted transparently, with the result that the borrower is unable to assess, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the financial consequences of signing that agreement, is liable to be regarded as unfair by the national court in its assessment of that term where it is found that, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. In that regard, it is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, taking account in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier concerning possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in contracting a loan in a foreign currency, first, the possible failure to comply with the requirement of good faith and second, the existence of a significant imbalance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a loan agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as a consequence of which the entire exchange rate risk is transferred to the borrower, and which is not drafted transparently, with the result that the borrower is unable to assess, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the financial consequences of signing that agreement, is liable to be regarded as unfair by the national court in its assessment of that term where it is found that, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. In that regard, it is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, taking account in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier concerning possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in contracting a loan in a foreign currency, first, the possible failure to comply with the requirement of good faith and second, the existence of a significant imbalance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/17

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó

(Case C-126/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) - Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Scope of the term ‘drafted in plain, intelligible language’ - Partial or total invalidity of the contract))

(2018/C 142/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

Defendant: Orsolya Czakó

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank in a Member State, in which the amount of money that will be made available to that consumer denominated in a foreign currency as an accounting currency, defined in relation to the payment currency, is clearly indicated, satisfy the requirement of those provisions that contractual terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language. In so far as the determination of that amount depends on the exchange rate applicable at the time of the release of the funds, that requirement means that the methods of calculation of the amount actually loaned and the rate of exchange applicable should be transparent, so that an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect may assess, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from that contract, including, inter alia, the total cost of the sum borrowed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank in a Member State, in which the amount of money that will be made available to that consumer denominated in a foreign currency as an accounting currency, defined in relation to the payment currency, is clearly indicated, satisfy the requirement of those provisions that contractual terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language. In so far as the determination of that amount depends on the exchange rate applicable at the time of the release of the funds, that requirement means that the methods of calculation of the amount actually loaned and the rate of exchange applicable should be transparent, so that an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect may assess, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from that contract, including, inter alia, the total cost of the sum borrowed.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a national court finds that the terms of a loan contract concluded between a consumer and a bank are unfair, such as the terms at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude that court from declaring that that contract is invalid in its entirety if it cannot continue in existence after the deletion of those terms. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a national court finds that the terms of a loan contract concluded between a consumer and a bank are unfair, such as the terms at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude that court from declaring that that contract is invalid in its entirety if it cannot continue in existence after the deletion of those terms.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/18

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi (C-142/17), Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17)

(Joined Cases C-142/17 and C-143/17) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 2006/54/EC - National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men))

(2018/C 142/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-142/17), Catia Passeri (C-143/17)

Defendants: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera, Luca Troiano, Mauro Murri (C-142/17), Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17)

Re:

Article 14(1)(c) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that national rules, such as those laid down in Article 3(7) of Decree-Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100, of 29 June 2010, in the version in force at the material time, pursuant to which workers employed as dancers having reached the retirement age laid down by those rules of 45 years old for both women and men, have the option for a transitional period of two years to continue to work until the working age limit laid down by the previous rules, set at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men, establishes direct discrimination based on sex which is prohibited by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/18

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission

(Case C-233/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Civil service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 - Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list))

(2018/C 142/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | GX shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GX shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission

(Case C-336/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’ - Protection of stray animals - Psychological effects on adults and children - Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Article 4(3)))

(2018/C 142/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis, Nathalie Louise Klinge (represented by: P. Brockmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/19

---

Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO

(Case C-529/17 P)

(2018/C 142/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Isabel Martín Osete (represented by: V. Wellens, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/20

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2017 by BMB sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2017 in Case T-695/15: BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-693/17 P)

(2018/C 142/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BMB sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Czubkowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferrero SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2017 in Case T-695/15 served on the appellant on 11 October 2017; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2017 in Case T-695/15 served on the appellant on 11 October 2017; and

| — | set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 in Case R 1150/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 in Case R 1150/2012-3;

Alternatively the Court of Justice shall set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court if the state of proceedings does not permit a decision by the Court of Justice.

According to article 138(1) of the Rules the Court of Justice should also:

| — | order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs of the present appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs of the present appeal; and

| — | order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the appellant before the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the appellant before the General Court; and

| — | order Ferrero Spa to pay the costs of proceedings before EUIPO concerning Decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ferrero Spa to pay the costs of proceedings before EUIPO concerning Decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 2 pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(l)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Design (1) due to error of law and manifest error in assessment:

| i. | that the graphical representation of the earlier trade mark is included in the contested design; |
| --- | --- |

i.

that the graphical representation of the earlier trade mark is included in the contested design;

| ii. | that the earlier trade mark and contested design are highly similar; and |
| --- | --- |

ii.

that the earlier trade mark and contested design are highly similar; and

| iii. | that the Board of Appeal committed no error when it held that there is a likelihood of confusion between earlier trade mark and contested design. |
| --- | --- |

iii.

that the Board of Appeal committed no error when it held that there is a likelihood of confusion between earlier trade mark and contested design.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(l)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Design in connection with the general principles of sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations due to an error of law and manifest error in assessment that reference made by the Board of Appeal to Article 8(l)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (2) in paragraph 33 of the Decision, is a mere formal error that did not have a decisive effect of the resolution of the dispute, and that it is not necessary to take into consideration national case-law on the IR in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---

(1)  OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/21

---

Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-701/17 P)

(2018/C 142/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vassil Monev Valkov (represented by: K. Mladenova, адвокат)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights, Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria

By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-7/18)

(2018/C 142/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Modesto Jardón Lama

Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Question referred

Must Article 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which requires as a condition for access to an early retirement pension that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned under that same national legislation, the term ‘pension to be received’ being interpreted as the actual pension from the competent Member State (in this case, Spain) alone, without also taking into account the actual pension which that person may receive through another benefit of the same kind from one or more other Member States?

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/22

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Marine Harvest ASA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2017 in Case T-704/14: Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission

(Case C-10/18 P)

(2018/C 142/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Marine Harvest ASA (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

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 whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the General Court’s judgment, in whole or in part;

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 23 July 2014 or, in the alternative, annul the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 23 July 2014 or, in the alternative, annul the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellant pursuant to the decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs, both these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs, both these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court;

| — | If necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

| — | Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to apply Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) in this case.






  a. | First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

By its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to apply Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘EUMR’) in this case.

a.

First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the ‘single concentration’ concept, in particular in dismissing Recital 20 of EUMR as a basis for interpreting the EU legislator’s intent to treat as a ‘single concentration’ all transactions that ‘are linked by a condition’.

| b. | Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Second, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the rationale of Article 7(2) EUMR.

| 2. | By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in imposing two fines for the same conduct.






  a. | The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR). |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in imposing two fines for the same conduct.

a.

The judgment violated the principle of ne bis in idem by fining Marine Harvest twice for acquiring title to Mr. Malek’s 48,5 % shareholding: €10 million once on the basis of Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to notification (alleged infringement of Article 4(1) EUMR) and a further €10 million on the basis of Article 14(2)(b) EUMR for allegedly implementing the concentration prior to clearance (alleged infringement of Article 7(1) EUMR).

| b. | In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty. |
| --- | --- |

b.

In the alternative, the judgment violated the set-off principle because it failed to take into account the first penalty when determining the second penalty.

| c. | In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence. |
| --- | --- |

c.

In the further alternative, the judgment erred in law in failing to apply the principle of concurrent offences: the alleged breach of the notification obligation in Article 4(1) was the more specific offence and therefore subsumed the alleged breach of the standstill obligation in Article 7(1) EUMR, which was the more general offence.

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — Sole-Mizo Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-13/18)

(2018/C 142/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sole-Mizo Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, it is proceeded on the basis that the national tax authority has not committed an infringement (failure to act) — that is, it has not delayed payment as regards the non-recoverable part of the value added tax (‘VAT’) ... on the taxable persons’ unpaid purchases — because when the national tax authority adopted its decision, the national legislation infringing Community law was in force and it was not until later that the Court of Justice declared that the requirement laid down in that legislation did not comply with Community law, consistent with the provisions of Community law, with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of effectiveness, direct effect and equivalence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, it is proceeded on the basis that the national tax authority has not committed an infringement (failure to act) — that is, it has not delayed payment as regards the non-recoverable part of the value added tax (‘VAT’) ... on the taxable persons’ unpaid purchases — because when the national tax authority adopted its decision, the national legislation infringing Community law was in force and it was not until later that the Court of Justice declared that the requirement laid down in that legislation did not comply with Community law, consistent with the provisions of Community law, with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of effectiveness, direct effect and equivalence?

| 2. | Is a practice of a Member State which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, distinguishes between whether the national tax authority failed to refund the tax in compliance with the national provisions then in force — which, moreover, infringed Community law — or whether it failed to do so in breach of such provisions and which, as regards the amount of the interest accrued on the VAT whose refund could not be claimed within a reasonable period due to a national-law requirement declared contrary to EU law by the Court of Justice, sets out two definable periods, with the result that,






  — | in the first period, taxable persons only have the right to receive default interest at the central bank base rate, in view of the fact that since the Hungarian legislation contrary to Community law was still then in force, the Hungarian tax authorities did not act unlawfully by not authorising the payment within a reasonable period of the VAT included in the invoices, whereas |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is a practice of a Member State which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, distinguishes between whether the national tax authority failed to refund the tax in compliance with the national provisions then in force — which, moreover, infringed Community law — or whether it failed to do so in breach of such provisions and which, as regards the amount of the interest accrued on the VAT whose refund could not be claimed within a reasonable period due to a national-law requirement declared contrary to EU law by the Court of Justice, sets out two definable periods, with the result that,

—

in the first period, taxable persons only have the right to receive default interest at the central bank base rate, in view of the fact that since the Hungarian legislation contrary to Community law was still then in force, the Hungarian tax authorities did not act unlawfully by not authorising the payment within a reasonable period of the VAT included in the invoices, whereas

| — | in the second period interest double the central bank base rate — applicable moreover in the event of delay in the legal system of the Member State in question — must be paid only for the late payment of the default interest corresponding to the first period |
| --- | --- |

—

in the second period interest double the central bank base rate — applicable moreover in the event of delay in the legal system of the Member State in question — must be paid only for the late payment of the default interest corresponding to the first period

consistent with Community law, in particular with the provisions of the VAT Directive (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality?

| 3. | Must Article 183 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the principle of equivalence precludes a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, on the VAT not returned, the tax authority only pays interest at the central bank base (simple) rate if EU law has been infringed, whereas it pays interest equivalent to double the central bank base rate if there has been an infringement of national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 183 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the principle of equivalence precludes a practice of a Member State pursuant to which, on the VAT not returned, the tax authority only pays interest at the central bank base (simple) rate if EU law has been infringed, whereas it pays interest equivalent to double the central bank base rate if there has been an infringement of national law?

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.

(Case C-29/18)

(2018/C 142/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

Respondents: FOGASA, José David Sanchez Iglesias and Incatema, S.L.

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

| (2) | If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.

(Case C-30/18)

(2018/C 142/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

Respondents: José Ramón Fiuza Asorey and Incatema, S.L.

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

| (2) | If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka

(Case C-38/18)

(2018/C 142/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

Question referred

Must Articles 16, 18 and 20(b) of Directive 2012/29/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding the victim of a crime from having to give evidence again before the court sitting in a new composition when one of the parties to the proceedings, in accordance with Articles 511(2) and 525(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as consistently interpreted by the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation), does not consent to that court reading the written record of the oral evidence previously given by that victim, in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule, before a different bench in the same proceedings?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/26

---

Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission

(Case C-39/18 P)

(2018/C 142/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, M. Farley, B. Mongin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (ICAP)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment (§ § 281-299 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in Article 2 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment (§ § 281-299 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in Article 2 of the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the fifth and sixth pleas of ICAP’s application before the General Court, relating to the fines, and establish the appropriate fines on ICAP by applying its unlimited jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the fifth and sixth pleas of ICAP’s application before the General Court, relating to the fines, and establish the appropriate fines on ICAP by applying its unlimited jurisdiction;

| — | order ICAP to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment at first instance in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ICAP to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment at first instance in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission bases its appeal on the following single ground of appeal:

The Commission submits that in its judgment in Case T-180/15 Icap plc and Others v Commission, EU:T:2017:795 the General Court incorrectly applied the case law of the Court of Justice on the statement of reasons required when imposing fines. The General Court’s judgment deviates from the leading judgment in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand v Commission, EU:C:2015:717, § § 66-68 and imposes a stricter obligation on the Commission to motivate in more detail the methodology used in calculating fines imposed for breaches of Article 101 TFEU, especially when applying point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The Commission’s appeal aims at correcting the serious errors of law committed by the General Court, which, if accepted, would be detrimental to the Commission’s ability to determine adequate fines so as to achieve sufficient deterrence. A properly construed duty of reasoning, which corresponds to the case law requirements recalled in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand, § 68, is essential to achieve that aim. By contrast, a stricter obligation of motivation on the fines, encompassing the internal deliberations and calculations of intermediary steps, impinges on the Commission’s margin of discretion in setting fines, including when it relies on point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The latter was designed precisely with the purpose of allowing the Commission to deviate from the Guidelines on Fines in atypical cases, such as when imposing fines on facilitators. As the Union Courts have recognised, the Commission needs to preserve its power of assessment and discretion in setting appropriate fines.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2018 — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli

(Case C-41/18)

(2018/C 142/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meca Srl

Defendant: Comune di Napoli

Question referred

Do the Community principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the principles deriving therefrom, such as those of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and effectiveness, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) and the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of that Directive, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on Article 80(5)(c) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which challenging before the courts significant deficiencies identified in the performance of a previous procurement procedure, which resulted in the early termination of a previous procurement contract, excludes any assessment by the procuring entity as to the reliability of the tenderer, until a final ruling has been issued in the civil proceedings, when the undertaking concerned has not demonstrated that it has adopted any ‘self-cleaning’ measures in order to remedy the breaches and avoid any repetition of them?

---

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

1

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.

(Case C-44/18)

(2018/C 142/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

Respondents: FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

| (2) | If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-46/18)

(2018/C 142/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl, S.s. Franco and Maurizio Artuso, Sebastiano Bolzon, Claudio Matteazzi, Roberto Tellatin

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

Questions referred

| 1. | In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met?

| 2. | In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law?

| 3. | In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (2) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers that have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (2) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers that have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 January 2018 — Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH

(Case C-47/18)

(2018/C 142/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Pánstwa Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej — Generalny Dyrektor Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad

Defendant: Stephan Riel, acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of Alpine Bau GmbH

Questions referred

Question 1

Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action for a specific declaration in insolvency proceedings (Prüfungsklage) under Austrian law concerns insolvency for the purposes of Article 1(2)(b) of the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012 and is, therefore, excluded from the material scope of that regulation?

Question 2a (only in the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative):

Is Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) to be applied analogously to related actions falling within the scope of the Insolvency Regulation?

Question 2b (only in the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2a is answered in the affirmative):

Is Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Jurisdiction Regulation 2012) to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties exist when a creditor (the applicant) who has lodged a (largely) identical claim in the main proceedings in Austria and in the secondary proceedings in Poland, which (in the main) was contested by the respective administrator, brings actions for a declaration of the existence of insolvency claims of a certain amount first in Poland against the administrator acting in the secondary proceedings in that country and then in Austria against the administrator acting in the main proceedings (the defendant)?

Question 3a:

Is Article 41 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to indicate the ‘nature of the claim, the date on which it arose and its amount’ is satisfied where, in the lodgement of his claim in the main insolvency, as is the case here, the creditor established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings (the applicant):

| a) | describes the claim simply by assigning a specific amount to it without stating the date on which that claim arose (for example, as a ‘claim by the subcontractor JSV Slawomir Kubica in respect of the carrying out of roadworks’); |
| --- | --- |

a)

describes the claim simply by assigning a specific amount to it without stating the date on which that claim arose (for example, as a ‘claim by the subcontractor JSV Slawomir Kubica in respect of the carrying out of roadworks’);

| b) | does not state the date on which the claim arose in the claims form itself, but such a date may be inferred from the annexes submitted with that form (for example, on the basis of the date stated on the invoice submitted)? |
| --- | --- |

b)

does not state the date on which the claim arose in the claims form itself, but such a date may be inferred from the annexes submitted with that form (for example, on the basis of the date stated on the invoice submitted)?

Question 3b:

Is Article 41 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Insolvency Regulation) to be interpreted as not precluding the application of national provisions — for example those relating to the requirement to state the day on which a claim arose — which are more favourable in the particular case to the creditor lodging the claim, who is established in a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-53/18)

(2018/C 142/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino

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

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a ‘tied agent’ covered by the harmonisation provided for in Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 April 2004, (1) and from what aspects; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a ‘tied agent’ covered by the harmonisation provided for in Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 April 2004, (1) and from what aspects;

| 2. | Is the correct application of Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004, in particular Articles 8, 23 and 51 of that directive, and of the principles and rules of the Treaties with regard to non-discrimination, proportionality, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment precluded by provisions of national law, such as those in Article 55(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (Consolidated Law on provisions on financial intermediation pursuant to Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as amended, and also Article 111, paragraph 2 of the Resolution No 16190 of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob of 29 October 2007 (Regulation laying down the rules implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 on intermediaries), that:






  a) | allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition of the exercise of the activity of a ‘tied agent’ (adviser authorised to offer offsite services — formerly financial planner) in relation to actions not entailing the loss of good repute, as defined by national law, and at the same time do not concern compliance with the provisions implementing the Directive; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is the correct application of Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004, in particular Articles 8, 23 and 51 of that directive, and of the principles and rules of the Treaties with regard to non-discrimination, proportionality, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment precluded by provisions of national law, such as those in Article 55(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (Consolidated Law on provisions on financial intermediation pursuant to Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as amended, and also Article 111, paragraph 2 of the Resolution No 16190 of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob of 29 October 2007 (Regulation laying down the rules implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 on intermediaries), that:

a)

allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition of the exercise of the activity of a ‘tied agent’ (adviser authorised to offer offsite services — formerly financial planner) in relation to actions not entailing the loss of good repute, as defined by national law, and at the same time do not concern compliance with the provisions implementing the Directive;

| b) | allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition for up to one year of the exercise of the activity of ‘tied agent’ (consultant authorised to provide offsite services — formerly financial [Or. 13] planner) in proceedings seeking to prevent the ‘strepitus’ deriving from the charge in criminal proceedings whose duration is as a rule much longer than a year’? |
| --- | --- |

b)

allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition for up to one year of the exercise of the activity of ‘tied agent’ (consultant authorised to provide offsite services — formerly financial [Or. 13] planner) in proceedings seeking to prevent the ‘strepitus’ deriving from the charge in criminal proceedings whose duration is as a rule much longer than a year’?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

(Case C-54/18)

(2018/C 142/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus

Defendants: Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which requires an operator taking part in a tendering procedure to challenge the admission of/failure to exclude another entity, within a period of 30 days of the communication of the decision to admit/exclude participants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which requires an operator taking part in a tendering procedure to challenge the admission of/failure to exclude another entity, within a period of 30 days of the communication of the decision to admit/exclude participants?

| 2. | Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article (1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/CEE, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which prevents an economic operator from claiming, upon conclusion of the procedure, even by cross-appeal, that the decision to admit other operators is unlawful, in particular the one awarded the contract or the applicant in the main action, if they had not previously challenged the decision to admit in the manner set out in the preceding question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article (1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/CEE, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which prevents an economic operator from claiming, upon conclusion of the procedure, even by cross-appeal, that the decision to admit other operators is unlawful, in particular the one awarded the contract or the applicant in the main action, if they had not previously challenged the decision to admit in the manner set out in the preceding question?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet

(Case C-60/18)

(2018/C 142/42)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AS Tallinna Vesi

Respondent: Keskkonnaamet

Intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, should Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives be interpreted to mean that a national legal act providing that end-of-waste status depends upon whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste is in keeping with that provision of Directive 2008/98/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, should Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives be interpreted to mean that a national legal act providing that end-of-waste status depends upon whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste is in keeping with that provision of Directive 2008/98/EC?

| 2. | In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, does the first sentence of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives grant the waste holder the right to apply to the competent authority or to a court in a Member State for a decision on end-of-waste status in keeping with the applicable case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, irrespective of whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, does the first sentence of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives grant the waste holder the right to apply to the competent authority or to a court in a Member State for a decision on end-of-waste status in keeping with the applicable case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, irrespective of whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd

(Case C-74/18)

(2018/C 142/43)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A Ltd

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalontayksikkö.

Questions referred

| 1. | In the interpretation of Article 157(1), first subparagraph of Directive 2009/138/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13(13) and (14) thereof, is the Member State entitled to levy tax on insurance premiums considered as being the State in which the company (a legal person) which has taken out the insurance policy is established or the State in which the company which is the subject of the company acquisition is established, where an insurance company with its registered office in Great Britain, which does not have a place of business in Finland offers insurance covering risks relating to a company acquisition






  — | to a company which does not have a place of business in Finland, which, in the company acquisition, acts as the purchaser, and the target company is established in Finland; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the interpretation of Article 157(1), first subparagraph of Directive 2009/138/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13(13) and (14) thereof, is the Member State entitled to levy tax on insurance premiums considered as being the State in which the company (a legal person) which has taken out the insurance policy is established or the State in which the company which is the subject of the company acquisition is established, where an insurance company with its registered office in Great Britain, which does not have a place of business in Finland offers insurance covering risks relating to a company acquisition

—

to a company which does not have a place of business in Finland, which, in the company acquisition, acts as the purchaser, and the target company is established in Finland;

| — | a company established in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the buyer, where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland; |
| --- | --- |

—

a company established in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the buyer, where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland;

| — | a company which has no place of business in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is established in Finland; |
| --- | --- |

—

a company which has no place of business in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is established in Finland;

| — | a company established in Finland, which in the company acquisition acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland. |
| --- | --- |

—

a company established in Finland, which in the company acquisition acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland.

| 2. | Does the fact that the insurance covers only the tax liabilities of the company which arose before the company acquisition have any impact in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the fact that the insurance covers only the tax liabilities of the company which arose before the company acquisition have any impact in the present case?

| 3. | Does the question whether the company acquisition concerns shares or a part of the business of the target company have an impact in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the question whether the company acquisition concerns shares or a part of the business of the target company have an impact in the present case?

| 4. | If the company acquisition concerns the shares of the target company is representations made by the seller to the buyer concern only the fact that the seller is the owner of the shares sold and that they are not subject to third-party claims have any effect in the present case? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the company acquisition concerns the shares of the target company is representations made by the seller to the buyer concern only the fact that the seller is the owner of the shares sold and that they are not subject to third-party claims have any effect in the present case?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 February 2018 — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

(Case C-89/18)

(2018/C 142/44)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

Questions referred

| 1. | In a case where ‘new restrictions’ have been introduced for family reunification between spouses which prima facie infringe the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association relating to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 between the European Economic Community and Turkey establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey), and those restrictions are justified on the basis of the considerations of ‘successful integration’ recognised by the EU Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 April 2016 in Case C-561/14, Genc, (1) see also the judgment of 10 July 2014 in Case C-138/13, Dogan, EU:C:2014:2066, (2) can a rule such as Paragraph 9(7) of the Danish Law on aliens (Udlændingeloven) — under which inter alia it is a general condition for family reunification between a person who is a third country national and has a residence permit in Denmark and that person’s spouse that the couple’s attachment to Denmark be greater than to Turkey — be deemed to be ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, ... suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and ... not [going] beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In a case where ‘new restrictions’ have been introduced for family reunification between spouses which prima facie infringe the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association relating to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 between the European Economic Community and Turkey establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey), and those restrictions are justified on the basis of the considerations of ‘successful integration’ recognised by the EU Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 April 2016 in Case C-561/14, Genc, (1) see also the judgment of 10 July 2014 in Case C-138/13, Dogan, EU:C:2014:2066, (2) can a rule such as Paragraph 9(7) of the Danish Law on aliens (Udlændingeloven) — under which inter alia it is a general condition for family reunification between a person who is a third country national and has a residence permit in Denmark and that person’s spouse that the couple’s attachment to Denmark be greater than to Turkey — be deemed to be ‘justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, ... suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and ... not [going] beyond what is necessary in order to attain it’?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, with the result that the attachment requirement is generally deemed to be suitable for ensuring attainment of the integration objective, is it then possible, without infringing the restriction test and the requirement of proportionality:






  (i) | to apply a practice under which, when the spouse with the residence permit in the Member State (the reference person) first came to Denmark at the age of 12-13 or later, in the assessment of the reference person’s attachment to the Member State significant weight is attached to the following: whether the person either has had a long-term lawful period of residence of around 12 years in the Member State or has had a period of residence and stable employment in the Member State involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and any customers in the Member State’s language, and which has continued without significant interruptions for at least four to five years, or has had a period of residence and stable employment not involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and customers in the Member State’s language, which has continued without significant interruptions for at least seven to eight years; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, with the result that the attachment requirement is generally deemed to be suitable for ensuring attainment of the integration objective, is it then possible, without infringing the restriction test and the requirement of proportionality:

(i)

to apply a practice under which, when the spouse with the residence permit in the Member State (the reference person) first came to Denmark at the age of 12-13 or later, in the assessment of the reference person’s attachment to the Member State significant weight is attached to the following: whether the person either has had a long-term lawful period of residence of around 12 years in the Member State or has had a period of residence and stable employment in the Member State involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and any customers in the Member State’s language, and which has continued without significant interruptions for at least four to five years, or has had a period of residence and stable employment not involving a significant degree of contact and communication with colleagues and customers in the Member State’s language, which has continued without significant interruptions for at least seven to eight years;

| (ii) | to apply a practice under which it will weigh against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where the reference person has maintained a significant attachment to their home country by making frequent or long-term visits to the home country, whilst short-term holiday or educational stays will not weigh against granting a permit; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

to apply a practice under which it will weigh against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where the reference person has maintained a significant attachment to their home country by making frequent or long-term visits to the home country, whilst short-term holiday or educational stays will not weigh against granting a permit;

| (iii) | to apply a practice under which it will weigh heavily against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where there is a so-called ‘married, divorced and remarried’ situation? |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

to apply a practice under which it will weigh heavily against fulfilment of the attachment requirement where there is a so-called ‘married, divorced and remarried’ situation?

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of 12th April 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:247.

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 10th July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2066.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/34

---

Action brought on 8 February 2018 European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-91/18)

(2018/C 142/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Kyratsou and F. Tomat)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force legislation






  i. | which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià (pomace brandy) manufactured by ‘systematic distillers’ a rate of excise duty reduced by 50 % compared to the standard national rate, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 23(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 110 TFUE; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force legislation

i.

which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià (pomace brandy) manufactured by ‘systematic distillers’ a rate of excise duty reduced by 50 % compared to the standard national rate, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 23(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 110 TFUE;

| ii. | which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘occasional’ distillers a further reduced rate of excise, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC, (2) Article 3(1) of Directive 92/84/EEC and Article 110 TFEU 92/83/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘occasional’ distillers a further reduced rate of excise, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC, (2) Article 3(1) of Directive 92/84/EEC and Article 110 TFEU 92/83/EEC;

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

—

Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 24 September 2015, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Greek authorities indicating that, by imposing on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘permanent distillers’ a rate of excise duty of reduced by 50 % compared to the standard national rate, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 23(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) and that, secondly, by imposing on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘occasional’ small-scale distillers a further reduced rate of excise, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC, Article 3(1) of Directive 92/84/EEC and Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE).

The provisions of EU law governing the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages do not provide for the application of a reduced rate of excise duty on tsipouro/tsikoudià. Furthermore, the imposition of a further reduced rate of excise duty on tsipouro/tsikoudià produced by ‘occasional’ small-scale distillers is contrary to the applicable provisions of Directive 92/83/EEC, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of Directive 92/84/EEC. Consequently, with regard to that measure, the current Greek legislation infringes those directives. Furthermore, that legislation infringes the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU, as it imposes a more onerous tax on imported alcoholic beverages similar to tsipouro/tsikoudià, and infringes the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU, as it indirectly protects tsipouro/tsikoudià with regard to other alcoholic beverages which are mainly imported from other Member States and are in competition with that local product.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).

(2)  Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

(Case C-102/18)

(2018/C 142/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

Question referred

Is the use of the form as set out in Annex 4 as Form IV, established in accordance with the advisory procedure under Article 81(2) of the EU Succession Regulation, (1) mandatory or merely optional for the purposes of an application for a European Certificate of Succession under Article 65(2) of the EU Succession Regulation, in accordance with Article 1(4) of the Implementing Regulation for the EU Succession Regulation? (2)

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/36

---

Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-116/18)

(2018/C 142/47)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

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

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | find that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, because it did not communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, because it did not communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

| — | order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

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

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, the Member States are under an obligation to adopt and implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 10 April 2016, and to communicate those measures to the Commission. Therefore, it is for the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose a directive into national law within the prescribed time limit and to communicate those measures to the Commission.

The Commission also proposes that a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 be applied to Romania for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case. The amount of that penalty has been determined by taking into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement, as well as the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect, according to that Member State’s ability to pay.

The time limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 10 April 2016.

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

(Case C-131/18)

(2018/C 142/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Question referred

Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fixed sum of EUR 40 referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive is to be offset against external legal costs which have been incurred in connection with the pre-litigation instruction of a lawyer following late payment on the part of the debtor and are therefore reimbursable under Article 6(3) of that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/37

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-144/18 P)

(2018/C 142/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14, Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14, Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union; and

| — | order the Applicant to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-460/14. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicant to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-460/14.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court’s findings are vitiated by several errors of law and by a distortion of the facts and the evidence before it. The appellant therefore submits that the contested judgment should be set aside.

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment’s failure to address the appellant’s objections to the admissibility of the original application — including with respect to the fourth plea — infringed the appellant’s rights of defense before the General Court. The contested judgment ignored the appellant’s inadmissibility claims without providing a reason/motivation as to why it was not necessary to address the appellant’s objections.

Second, by classifying the issue of the allocation of costs as one related to the determination of the normal value and hence the dumping margin calculation, and not as one related to the existence of a lasting change in circumstances, the contested judgment has distorted the evidence. None of the submissions made by the applicant during the administrative proceeding link the issue of the allocation of costs to the calculation of the dumping margin.

Finally, the contested judgment violates Article 10 of the basic Regulation (1) as well as the general principle of non-retroactivity as the appellant’s antidumping duty is effectively retroactively increased from 3,6 % to 12,8 %.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).

---

General Court

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Rose Vision v Commission

(Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement concerning the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects - Deadline for providing the final financial audit report - Financial audits finding anomalies in the implementation of the projects - Suspension of payments - Confidentiality of financial audits - Eligibility of the costs declared - Non-contractual liability - Repayment of the sums advanced - Harm caused by listing in the early warning system))

(2018/C 142/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rose Vision, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: J.J. Marín López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, in Case T-45/13 RENV and by J. Estrada de Solà, P. Rosa Plaza and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, in Case T-587/15)

Re:

In Case T 45/13 RENV, first, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration of breach of the contractual terms applicable the FutureNEM project, second, application under Article 272 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the Commission’s breach of those contractual terms, third, application under Article 268 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of its listing in the early warning system (EWS) and, fourth, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision on the listing of the applicant’s name in the EWS and, in Case T 587/15, first, in essence, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration of breach of the contractual terms applicable to the FIRST, FutureNEM, sISI, 4NEM and SFERA projects, second, application under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that the applicant is not liable to the Commission in the amount claimed from it, for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the breach of the contractual terms by the Commission and an order finding the Commission liable to pay the amounts owed in respect of its participation in those projects, third, application under Article 268 TFEU for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as a consequence of listing the applicant’s name in the EWS and, fourth, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5449 final of 28 July 2015 on recovery in the total amount of EUR 535 613,20 owed by the applicant, plus interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15 for the purpose of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-45/13 RENV and T-587/15 for the purpose of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Rose Vision, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including, in respect of Case T-45/13 RENV, those incurred in the original proceedings before the Court in Case T-45/13, in the proceedings on appeal in Case C-224/15 P and in the proceedings after referral back. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Rose Vision, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including, in respect of Case T-45/13 RENV, those incurred in the original proceedings before the Court in Case T-45/13, in the proceedings on appeal in Case C-224/15 P and in the proceedings after referral back.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission

(Case T-292/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Admissibility - Misuse of procedure - Conflict of interests - Duty of diligence - Loss of opportunity))

(2018/C 142/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton, formerly Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, and subsequently by E. Georgieva and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation in respect of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities committed by the Commission in the context of the Tendering Procedure ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in relation to the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the contract ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL) and for the costs and expenses incurred in participating in that call for tenders; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in relation to the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the contract ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL) and for the costs and expenses incurred in participating in that call for tenders;

| 2. | Orders that the compensation referred to in point 1 of the present operative part be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the compensation referred to in point 1 of the present operative part be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement;

| 5. | Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

| 6. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-316/15) (1)

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Justification for the public contribution - Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 - Time-limit not respected))

(2018/C 142/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, D. Recchia and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 2230 of 31 March 2015 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at the IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ under Priority Axis No 4 of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-402/15) (1)

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded))

(2018/C 142/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015, refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ in the context of Priority Axis 4 of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-85/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 3106/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-140/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Authority of the Secretary-General - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 142/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented initially by M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, and finally by F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and of the related debit note of 4 February 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Altunis v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (CIPRIANI)

(Case T-438/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CIPRIANI - Earlier EU word mark HOTEL CIPRIANI - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented initially by P. Cantrill, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Brandreth, A. Poulter and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2016 (Case R 1889/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hotel Cipriani and Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-462/16) (1)

((FEAGA - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Legitimate Expectations - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/57)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it concerns the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-624/16) (1)

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Electa una via - Rights of the defence - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Political rights - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Independence of the Members - Error of fact - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, then F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-629/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 597/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark €$ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/60)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the sign €$ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB

(Case T-764/16) (1)

((Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary and bonus review - Lawfulness of the guidelines - Calculation method - Taking into account of sickness leave - Taking into account of activities of a staff representative - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2018/C 142/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jörn Paulini (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, subsequently by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and finally by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the ECB, sent to the applicant on 15 December 2015 and amended on 10 February 2016, concerning the 2015 annual salary and bonus review and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)

(Case T-843/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Foto Paradies - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (R 1194/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Digital Print Group O. Schimek and dm-drogerie markt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA

(Case T-855/16) (1)

((REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Exceeding of financial ceilings - Concept of ‘linked enterprise’))

(2018/C 142/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gomez Rodriguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux and L. Tosoni, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision SME(2016) 5150 of 15 November 2016, which states that the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions required in order to benefit from a reduced fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposes payment of an administrative charge and invoices Nos 10060160 and 10060161 issued by the ECHA and annexed to Decision SME(2016) 5150.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fertisac, SL to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fertisac, SL to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

(Case T-6/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA - Earlier international figurative mark LABELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and M. del Mar Baldares, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between ITM Entreprises and Equivalenza Manufactory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 October 2016 (Case R 690/2016-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by, Equivalenza Manufactory, SL in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by, Equivalenza Manufactory, SL in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)

(Case T-103/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG - Earlier national word mark NORMON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430)))

(2018/C 142/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Recordati Orphan Drugs (Puteaux, France) (represented by: J. Quirin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Normon, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: I. Gonzalez-Mogena Gonzalez, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 (Case R 831/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Normon and Recordati Orphan Drugs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Recordati Orphan Drugs to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Recordati Orphan Drugs to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)

(Case T-159/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 - Earlier national figurative mark SOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 142/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solemo Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Müller and A. Fottner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Solemo and Claro Sol Cleaning.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1);

| 2. | Orders Solemo Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Solemo Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

(Case T-230/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RSTUDIO - Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2018/C 142/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and G. Smith, Solicitor)

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 493/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Embarcadero Technologies and Rstudio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/51

---

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI)

(Case T-35/18)

(2018/C 142/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: La Marchesiana Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, F. Santonocito and A. Sobol, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marchesi Angelo Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MARCHESI consisting of seven brush strokes coloured orange, blue, yellow, red, green, black and violet — European Union trade mark No 4 187 159

Procedure before EUIPO: Application for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in joined Cases R 1753/2016-4 and R 1802/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety Angelo Marchesi’s request for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety Angelo Marchesi’s request for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use;

| — | find, by way of variation of the contested decision, that EU trade mark No 4 187 159 was put to genuine use within the European Union during the reference period, pursuant to Article 58(1) EUTMR, in relation to goods/services in Classes 8 (Hand tools and implements, in particular kitchen utensils), 16 (Paper, cardboard, printed matter, books, magazines, artists’ materials, stationery, teaching material), 21 (Household or kitchen utensils and containers, cooking pots, plates, glasses, glassware, porcelain and earthenware), 29 (Foodstuffs of animal origin, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats), 30 (Coffee and artificial coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, flour, bread, pasta, pastries, ices, additives for improving the flavour of the foods), 33 (Alcoholic beverages), as well as goods/services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens); |
| --- | --- |

—

find, by way of variation of the contested decision, that EU trade mark No 4 187 159 was put to genuine use within the European Union during the reference period, pursuant to Article 58(1) EUTMR, in relation to goods/services in Classes 8 (Hand tools and implements, in particular kitchen utensils), 16 (Paper, cardboard, printed matter, books, magazines, artists’ materials, stationery, teaching material), 21 (Household or kitchen utensils and containers, cooking pots, plates, glasses, glassware, porcelain and earthenware), 29 (Foodstuffs of animal origin, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats), 30 (Coffee and artificial coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, flour, bread, pasta, pastries, ices, additives for improving the flavour of the foods), 33 (Alcoholic beverages), as well as goods/services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

| — | in the alternative and by way of partial variation of the contested decision, dismiss the opponent’s application for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use in relation to goods and services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens); |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative and by way of partial variation of the contested decision, dismiss the opponent’s application for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use in relation to goods and services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

| — | order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of these proceedings and both the preceding procedural stages. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of these proceedings and both the preceding procedural stages.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect assessment of the evidence of use for the purpose of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect assessment of the evidence of use for the purpose of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/52

---

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

(Case T-41/18)

(2018/C 142/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (represented by: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls;

| — | in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal). |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that inconsistent application of EU legislation in relation to the importation of frozen and refrigerated fishery products from non-EU countries has skewed competition rules and the level playing field, leading to a distortion of the internal market.

In that regard, it also submits that ports play a key role in freight transportation and, more specifically, in relation to imports of fishery products, 76 % of which enter through ports.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/52

---

Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission

(Case T-64/18)

(2018/C 142/70)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistema de Computadores — Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | first, declare that Commission Decision (2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 on the recovery of a debt is null and void in so far as it relates to debit note No 3241507078 and, secondly, annul that decision as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, declare that Commission Decision (2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 on the recovery of a debt is null and void in so far as it relates to debit note No 3241507078 and, secondly, annul that decision as to the remainder;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | With regard to the application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, the applicant relies on the Commission’s appropriation of the powers of the judiciary, in that it substituted the decision of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14, in which the Court set the European Union’s claim relating to a specific debt, with a different, enforceable, decision relating to that debt, in breach of Article 19 TEU and Article 272 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, the applicant relies on the Commission’s appropriation of the powers of the judiciary, in that it substituted the decision of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14, in which the Court set the European Union’s claim relating to a specific debt, with a different, enforceable, decision relating to that debt, in breach of Article 19 TEU and Article 272 TFEU;

| 2. | With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on:






  — | a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on:

—

a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are;

| — | misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause. |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause.

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/53

---

Action brought on 09/02/2018 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-81/18)

(2018/C 142/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joao Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | annul, first, the decision of 30/10/2017 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union, lodged on 19/06/2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of 30/10/2017 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union, lodged on 19/06/2017;

| — | annul, second, the decisions of 20/03/2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the training programme under the 2016 certification procedure, and rejecting his request for a review under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, second, the decisions of 20/03/2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the training programme under the 2016 certification procedure, and rejecting his request for a review under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul, third, the decision of 14/02/2016 of the European Parliament notifying the applicant of his results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for the 2016 certification procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, third, the decision of 14/02/2016 of the European Parliament notifying the applicant of his results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for the 2016 certification procedure;

| — | annul, fourth, the European Parliament’s decision of 08/12/2017 informing the applicant that he was ranked 36 out of 87 applications for the 2016 certification procedure, with the result that his name does not appear on the relevant draft list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fourth, the European Parliament’s decision of 08/12/2017 informing the applicant that he was ranked 36 out of 87 applications for the 2016 certification procedure, with the result that his name does not appear on the relevant draft list;

| — | annul, fifth, the European Parliament’s decision of 21/12/2016 refusing to review the applicant’s assessment and score and excluding him from the said certification process; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fifth, the European Parliament’s decision of 21/12/2016 refusing to review the applicant’s assessment and score and excluding him from the said certification process;

| — | annul, sixth, the European Parliament’s internal notice of competition 2016/014 of 07/10/2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, sixth, the European Parliament’s internal notice of competition 2016/014 of 07/10/2016;

| — | annul, finally, in its entirety, the European Parliament’s draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, finally, in its entirety, the European Parliament’s draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme;

| — | award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, manifest error of assessment of relevant facts and documents, breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, manifest error of assessment of relevant facts and documents, breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, further, plea of illegality and inapplicability related to the alleged illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, further, plea of illegality and inapplicability related to the alleged illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence, breach of the notice of competition and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations in conjunction with Annex III to those Regulations and further of the duty of sound and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence, breach of the notice of competition and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations in conjunction with Annex III to those Regulations and further of the duty of sound and good administration.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter and manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of equality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter and manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of equality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58 (1), breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and further breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58 (1), breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and further breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

---

(1)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/55

---

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — International Skating Union v Commission

(Case T-93/18)

(2018/C 142/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Skating Union (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 8 December 2017 in Case AT.40208 — International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, and

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning on which the Contested Decision rests is vitiated by a fundamental contradiction.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their object to restrict competition.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s eligibility rules do not have as their effect to restrict competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU because this decision pursued a legitimate objective in line with the Applicant’s Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of support for betting.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Applicant’s decision not to approve the 2014 Dubai Icederby event falls outside the territorial scope of Article 101 TFEU.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the claim that the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport reinforce the alleged restrictions of competition is groundless.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers by imposing on the Applicant remedies which bear no relation to a finding of infringement.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of periodic penalty payments lacks any valid legal basis.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/55

---

Action brought on 12 February 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-95/18)

(2018/C 142/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul European Parliament Bureau Decision dated 23 October 2017, with the reference PE 610.437/BUR/Decision, as notified by the letter of the President of the European Parliament of 1 December with reference D 318700 and rejecting Mr Gollnisch’s complaint in appeal to the Quaestors against the decision of the Secretary-General; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Parliament Bureau Decision dated 23 October 2017, with the reference PE 610.437/BUR/Decision, as notified by the letter of the President of the European Parliament of 1 December with reference D 318700 and rejecting Mr Gollnisch’s complaint in appeal to the Quaestors against the decision of the Secretary-General;

| — | annul simultaneously the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, notified on 6 July, that ‘an amount of EUR 275 984,23 was wrongly paid to Mr Bruno Gollnisch’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the accounting officer of the institution to recover that amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul simultaneously the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, notified on 6 July, that ‘an amount of EUR 275 984,23 was wrongly paid to Mr Bruno Gollnisch’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the accounting officer of the institution to recover that amount;

| — | annul simultaneously the notification and the implementing measures of the aforementioned decision contained in the letter of the Director-General of Finance of 6 July 2016, ref. D 201920; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul simultaneously the notification and the implementing measures of the aforementioned decision contained in the letter of the Director-General of Finance of 6 July 2016, ref. D 201920;

| — | annul simultaneously debit note No 2016-914 signed by that Director-General of Finance on 5 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul simultaneously debit note No 2016-914 signed by that Director-General of Finance on 5 July 2016;

| — | award the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage resulting both from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to his reputation, from the very significant disruption to his personal and political life caused by the contested decision and the considerable amount of work he was forced to devote to those proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage resulting both from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to his reputation, from the very significant disruption to his personal and political life caused by the contested decision and the considerable amount of work he was forced to devote to those proceedings;

| — | also award him also the sum of EUR 28 000 by way of costs respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

also award him also the sum of EUR 28 000 by way of costs respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the full costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the full costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas directed specifically against the Bureau’s decision.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging several infringements of essential procedural requirements by the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision infringes the right of the applicant to have his case heard by an impartial body. The defendant also allegedly infringed his rights of defence. The contested decision is thus based on an incorrect statement by the representative of the Quaestors and its statement of reasons is insufficient in so far as it fails to answer several of the complaints raised by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging several infringements of essential procedural requirements by the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision infringes the right of the applicant to have his case heard by an impartial body. The defendant also allegedly infringed his rights of defence. The contested decision is thus based on an incorrect statement by the representative of the Quaestors and its statement of reasons is insufficient in so far as it fails to answer several of the complaints raised by the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts leading to the adoption of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts leading to the adoption of the contested decision.

The applicant also raises the pleas which it has made against the Secretary-General’s decision complained of before the Bureau of the Parliament, in that the latter maintained the contested decision without taking proper account of the arguments put forward by the applicant.

| 1. | First plea, alleging defects in the procedure which led to the adoption of the Secretary-General’s decision, relating to the Secretary-General’s lack of competence, to an infringement of the rights of the defence, to a reversal of the burden of proof, to an inadequate statement of reasons, as well as failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging defects in the procedure which led to the adoption of the Secretary-General’s decision, relating to the Secretary-General’s lack of competence, to an infringement of the rights of the defence, to a reversal of the burden of proof, to an inadequate statement of reasons, as well as failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging an infringement of the civil rights of parliamentary assistants, of the discriminatory treatment of the applicant, of misuse of powers, of infringement of the independence of Members and failure to understand the role of local parliamentary assistants, as well as a failure to observe the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging an infringement of the civil rights of parliamentary assistants, of the discriminatory treatment of the applicant, of misuse of powers, of infringement of the independence of Members and failure to understand the role of local parliamentary assistants, as well as a failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/57

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18)

(2018/C 142/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;

| — | Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;

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

—

Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the defendant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.

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

| 1. | The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.

| 2. | The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.

| 3. | The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on account of the failure to take into account the degree of fault on the part of each of the participants in the conduct alleged. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on account of the failure to take into account the degree of fault on the part of each of the participants in the conduct alleged.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/58

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)

(Case T-106/18)

(2018/C 142/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroecopark (Majadahonda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark VERA GREEN — Application for registration No 15 068 646

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 982/2017-5

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 proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/58

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-117/18)

(2018/C 142/76)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 688

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2194/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 688), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 688), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/59

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-118/18)

(2018/C 142/77)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 696

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2195/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 696), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 696), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/60

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-119/18)

(2018/C 142/78)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 704

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2200/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 704), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 704), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/61

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-120/18)

(2018/C 142/79)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 712

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2201/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 712), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 712), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/62

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-121/18)

(2018/C 142/80)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 671

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2208/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 671), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 671), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

| — | declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/63

---

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)

(Case T-122/18)

(2018/C 142/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger and A. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shimano Europe BV (Nunspeet, Netherlands).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PRO — Application for registration No 14 468 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 1332/2017-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No 002654773 filed against EUTM application No 014 468 904; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No 002654773 filed against EUTM application No 014 468 904;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order Shimano Europe B.V. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Shimano Europe B.V. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/64

---

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Bayer Intellectual Property v EUIPO (Representation of a heart)

(Case T-123/18)

(2018/C 142/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a heart) — Application for registration No 15 701 568

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 145/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the applicant’s appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant’s appeal before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/65

---

Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

(Case T-126/18)

(2018/C 142/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Van Haren Schoenen BV (Waalwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens, A. Willems and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and of the principle of legal certainty for imposing anti-dumping duties on goods that are in free circulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and of the principle of legal certainty for imposing anti-dumping duties on goods that are in free circulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest. According to the applicant, it was, in any event, manifestly incorrect to conclude that the Union had an interest in the anti-dumping duties being imposed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest. According to the applicant, it was, in any event, manifestly incorrect to conclude that the Union had an interest in the anti-dumping duties being imposed.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

---

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

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/66

---

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-127/18)

(2018/C 142/84)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Cortina (Oudenaarde, Belgium) and FLA Europe (Oudenaarde) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/66

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — IQ Group Holdings Berhad v EUIPO — Krinner Innovation (Lumiqs)

(Case T-133/18)

(2018/C 142/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: IQ Group Holdings Berhad (Heckmondwike, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Carter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krinner Innovation GmbH (Straßkirchen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of figurative mark Lumiqs — International registration designating the European Union No 1 220 053

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 983/2017-1.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the application to proceed to registration in respect of the contested goods as amended; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the application to proceed to registration in respect of the contested goods as amended;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/67

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (BALLER’S PUNCH)

(Case T-134/18)

(2018/C 142/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BALLER’S PUNCH — Application for registration No 14 823 306

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2017 in Case R 998/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 March 2017 in Opposition B002643172; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 March 2017 in Opposition B002643172;

| — | register the opposed mark for all goods covered by the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

register the opposed mark for all goods covered by the application;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 2017/1001.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/68

---

Action brought on 21 February 2018 — Avio v European Commission

(Case T-139/18)

(2018/C 142/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Avio SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | regarding the substance, annul Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724; |
| --- | --- |

—

regarding the substance, annul Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724;

| — | by way of a measure of inquiry, order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 88, 89 and 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit the documents referred to in Section III of the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of a measure of inquiry, order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 88, 89 and 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit the documents referred to in Section III of the present application;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4621 final of 20 July 2016 concerning the authorisation, under Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, of the concentration ‘ASL/Arianespace’, Case COMP/M.7724, as published in its non-confidential version on 11 December 2017.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to state adequate reasons






  — | The Commission made a manifest error of assessment, failed to conduct a proper investigation and failed to state adequate reasons by not correctly analysing the risk of foreclosure in the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, in particular with regard to capacity, inducements and anti-competitive effects; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to state adequate reasons

—

The Commission made a manifest error of assessment, failed to conduct a proper investigation and failed to state adequate reasons by not correctly analysing the risk of foreclosure in the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, in particular with regard to capacity, inducements and anti-competitive effects;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment






  — | The Commission made a manifest error of assessment by not requiring undertakings to be given with respect to the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, particularly with regard to the risks to competition connected to the conflict of interests within Arianespace and the risk of exchange of sensitive information between Arianespace and ASL. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment

—

The Commission made a manifest error of assessment by not requiring undertakings to be given with respect to the market for launchers operated by Arianespace, particularly with regard to the risks to competition connected to the conflict of interests within Arianespace and the risk of exchange of sensitive information between Arianespace and ASL.

---

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/69

---

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission

(Case T-157/18)

(2018/C 142/88)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Caprice Schuhproduktion GmbH & Co. KG (Pirmasens, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

| — | 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 three pleas in law. The pleas put forward are identical to those put forward in Case T-127/18, Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission.

---