# Official Journal C 350/26 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 350 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5926 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 350

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5926 September 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 350/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 350/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 350/02 | Case C-660/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Action for annulment — The European Union’s external relations — Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market — The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union — Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement — Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia — Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia — Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union — Powers — Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU — Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation) | 2 |
| 2016/C 350/03 | Case C-469/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Long journeys — Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) — Journey times and animal resting periods during transport — Transport of cattle — Concept of rest period of at least one hour — Possibility of interrupting the transport several times — Article 22 — Delays during transport — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 — Export refunds — Requirements of the welfare of live bovine animals during transport — Regulation No 817/2010 — Article 2(2) to (4) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Official veterinarian at the exit point — Report and entry on the document evidencing the exit of the animals from the customs territory of the European Union regarding compliance or non-compliance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 — Unsatisfactory result of the checks carried out — Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Whether or not that entry is binding on the national authority competent for the export refund) | 3 |
| 2016/C 350/04 | Case C-543/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Validity and interpretation of the directive — Services provided by lawyers — Liability to VAT — Right to an effective remedy — Equality of arms — Legal aid) | 4 |
| 2016/C 350/05 | Case C-57/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Legal costs — Lawyers’ fees — Flat-rate reimbursement — Maximum amounts — Costs of a technical adviser — Reimbursement — Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party) | 5 |
| 2016/C 350/06 | Case C-80/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties — Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory — Article 555(1)(a) — Commercial use — Concept — Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor — Not included) | 5 |
| 2016/C 350/07 | Case C-102/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Scope ratione materiae — Recovery of sum not due — Unjust enrichment — Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law) | 6 |
| 2016/C 350/08 | Case C-147/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the environment — Waste management — Directive 2006/21/EC — Article 10(2) — Backfilling of excavation voids using waste other than extractive waste — Landfill or recovery of such waste) | 7 |
| 2016/C 350/09 | Case C-168/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement containing an unfair term — Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term — Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court — Conditions of engagement — Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law) | 7 |
| 2016/C 350/10 | Case C-191/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) No 864/2007 and (EC) No 593/2008 — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Data protection — Directive 95/46/EC — Online sales contracts concluded with consumers resident in other Member States — Unfair terms — General terms and conditions containing a choice-of-law term applying the law of the Member State in which the company is established — Determination of the applicable law for assessing the unfairness of terms in those general terms and conditions in an action for an injunction — Determination of the law governing the processing of personal data of consumers) | 8 |
| 2016/C 350/11 | Case C-240/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 3 — Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges — National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending) | 9 |
| 2016/C 350/12 | Case C-330/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it — List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellants’ names) | 10 |
| 2016/C 350/13 | Case C-332/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 — Right to deduct VAT — Substantive requirements — Formal requirements — Limitation period — National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements — Tax evasion) | 10 |
| 2016/C 350/14 | Case C-379/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — National measure incompatible with EU law — Legal consequences — Power of the national court to maintain certain effects of that measure provisionally — Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Obligation to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling) | 11 |
| 2016/C 350/15 | Case C-423/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 3(1)(a) — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Article 14(1)(a) — Scope — Definition of access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation — Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination — Abuse of rights) | 12 |
| 2016/C 350/16 | Case C-457/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Temporal scope — Time when the emissions trading obligation arises — Article 3 — Annexe I — Concept of installation — Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW) | 13 |
| 2016/C 350/17 | Case C-289/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. | 14 |
| 2016/C 350/18 | Case C-354/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH | 14 |
| 2016/C 350/19 | Case C-390/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada | 15 |
| 2016/C 350/20 | Case C-391/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra | 16 |
| 2016/C 350/21 | Case C-392/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București | 16 |
| 2016/C 350/22 | Case C-422/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH | 17 |
| 2016/C 350/23 | Case C-423/16P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council | 18 |
| 2016/C 350/24 | Case C-424/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero | 19 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 350/25 | Case T-371/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission | 20 |
| 2016/C 350/26 | Case T-373/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission | 20 |
| 2016/C 350/27 | Case T-383/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council | 21 |
| 2016/C 350/28 | Case T-388/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission | 22 |
| 2016/C 350/29 | Case T-420/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — SJM Coordination Center v Commission | 23 |
| 2016/C 350/30 | Case T-434/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO) | 24 |
| 2016/C 350/31 | Case T-439/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost) | 25 |
| 2016/C 350/32 | Case T-444/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission | 26 |
| 2016/C 350/33 | Case T-447/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread) | 27 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 350/02

Case C-660/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Action for annulment — The European Union’s external relations — Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market — The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union — Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement — Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia — Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia — Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union — Powers — Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU — Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation)

2

2016/C 350/03

Case C-469/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Long journeys — Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) — Journey times and animal resting periods during transport — Transport of cattle — Concept of rest period of at least one hour — Possibility of interrupting the transport several times — Article 22 — Delays during transport — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 — Export refunds — Requirements of the welfare of live bovine animals during transport — Regulation No 817/2010 — Article 2(2) to (4) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Official veterinarian at the exit point — Report and entry on the document evidencing the exit of the animals from the customs territory of the European Union regarding compliance or non-compliance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 — Unsatisfactory result of the checks carried out — Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 817/2010 — Whether or not that entry is binding on the national authority competent for the export refund)

3

2016/C 350/04

Case C-543/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Validity and interpretation of the directive — Services provided by lawyers — Liability to VAT — Right to an effective remedy — Equality of arms — Legal aid)

4

2016/C 350/05

Case C-57/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Legal costs — Lawyers’ fees — Flat-rate reimbursement — Maximum amounts — Costs of a technical adviser — Reimbursement — Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party)

5

2016/C 350/06

Case C-80/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties — Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory — Article 555(1)(a) — Commercial use — Concept — Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor — Not included)

5

2016/C 350/07

Case C-102/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Scope ratione materiae — Recovery of sum not due — Unjust enrichment — Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law)

6

2016/C 350/08

Case C-147/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the environment — Waste management — Directive 2006/21/EC — Article 10(2) — Backfilling of excavation voids using waste other than extractive waste — Landfill or recovery of such waste)

7

2016/C 350/09

Case C-168/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement containing an unfair term — Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term — Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court — Conditions of engagement — Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law)

7

2016/C 350/10

Case C-191/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) No 864/2007 and (EC) No 593/2008 — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Data protection — Directive 95/46/EC — Online sales contracts concluded with consumers resident in other Member States — Unfair terms — General terms and conditions containing a choice-of-law term applying the law of the Member State in which the company is established — Determination of the applicable law for assessing the unfairness of terms in those general terms and conditions in an action for an injunction — Determination of the law governing the processing of personal data of consumers)

8

2016/C 350/11

Case C-240/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 3 — Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges — National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending)

9

2016/C 350/12

Case C-330/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it — List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the appellants’ names)

10

2016/C 350/13

Case C-332/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 — Right to deduct VAT — Substantive requirements — Formal requirements — Limitation period — National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements — Tax evasion)

10

2016/C 350/14

Case C-379/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — National measure incompatible with EU law — Legal consequences — Power of the national court to maintain certain effects of that measure provisionally — Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Obligation to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling)

11

2016/C 350/15

Case C-423/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 3(1)(a) — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Article 14(1)(a) — Scope — Definition of access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation — Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination — Abuse of rights)

12

2016/C 350/16

Case C-457/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Temporal scope — Time when the emissions trading obligation arises — Article 3 — Annexe I — Concept of installation — Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW)

13

2016/C 350/17

Case C-289/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

14

2016/C 350/18

Case C-354/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH

14

2016/C 350/19

Case C-390/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

15

2016/C 350/20

Case C-391/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra

16

2016/C 350/21

Case C-392/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

16

2016/C 350/22

Case C-422/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH

17

2016/C 350/23

Case C-423/16P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council

18

2016/C 350/24

Case C-424/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero

19

General Court

2016/C 350/25

Case T-371/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission

20

2016/C 350/26

Case T-373/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission

20

2016/C 350/27

Case T-383/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council

21

2016/C 350/28

Case T-388/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission

22

2016/C 350/29

Case T-420/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — SJM Coordination Center v Commission

23

2016/C 350/30

Case T-434/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)

24

2016/C 350/31

Case T-439/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)

25

2016/C 350/32

Case T-444/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission

26

2016/C 350/33

Case T-447/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)

27

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

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

(2016/C 350/01)

Last publication

OJ C 343, 19.9.2016

Past publications

OJ C 335, 12.9.2016

OJ C 326, 5.9.2016

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission

(Case C-660/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - The European Union’s external relations - Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market - The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union - Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement - Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia - Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia - Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union - Powers - Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU - Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation))

(2016/C 350/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, P. Mahnič and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, E. Ruffer and M. Hedvábná, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and B. Beutler, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and M. Tassopoulou, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and N. Rouam, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and J. Nasutavičienėè, Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Szima, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and M.Noort, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, C. Brodie, S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission, (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and T. Scharf, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time, of a new decision to replace it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time, of a new decision to replace it;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-469/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journeys - Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) - Journey times and animal resting periods during transport - Transport of cattle - Concept of ‘rest period of at least one hour’ - Possibility of interrupting the transport several times - Article 22 - Delays during transport - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 - Export refunds - Requirements of the welfare of live bovine animals during transport - Regulation No 817/2010 - Article 2(2) to (4) of Regulation No 817/2010 - Official veterinarian at the exit point - Report and entry on the document evidencing the exit of the animals from the customs territory of the European Union regarding compliance or non-compliance with the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 - Unsatisfactory result of the checks carried out - Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 817/2010 - Whether or not that entry is binding on the national authority competent for the export refund))

(2016/C 350/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Masterrind GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the transport by road of the animals belonging to the species referred to, in particular the bovine species except calves, first, the rest period between the periods of movement may, in principle, be longer than one hour. However, that length of time, if it exceeds one hour, must not be such that, in the specific conditions in which that rest and the transport occur together, it constitutes a risk of injury or undue suffering for the transported animals. Furthermore, the combined journey time and resting periods, as provided for under point 1.4(d) of that chapter, must not exceed 29 hours, subject to the possibility of extending those periods by 2 hours in the interests of the animals, in accordance with point 1.8 of that chapter and without prejudice to the application of Article 22 of that regulation in the event of unforeseeable circumstances. Second, the periods of movement of a maximum of 14 hours may each include 1 or more stop periods. Those break periods must be in addition to the periods of movement that count towards the overall period of movement of a maximum of 14 hours to which they belong. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annex I, Chapter V, point 1.4(d) to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the transport by road of the animals belonging to the species referred to, in particular the bovine species except calves, first, the rest period between the periods of movement may, in principle, be longer than one hour. However, that length of time, if it exceeds one hour, must not be such that, in the specific conditions in which that rest and the transport occur together, it constitutes a risk of injury or undue suffering for the transported animals. Furthermore, the combined journey time and resting periods, as provided for under point 1.4(d) of that chapter, must not exceed 29 hours, subject to the possibility of extending those periods by 2 hours in the interests of the animals, in accordance with point 1.8 of that chapter and without prejudice to the application of Article 22 of that regulation in the event of unforeseeable circumstances. Second, the periods of movement of a maximum of 14 hours may each include 1 or more stop periods. Those break periods must be in addition to the periods of movement that count towards the overall period of movement of a maximum of 14 hours to which they belong.

| 2. | Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport must be interpreted as meaning that the authority competent for the payment of export refunds for bovine animals is not bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point on the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the European Union of the animals concerned, according to which the applicable provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 were not adhered to in the context of the transport of those animals, in relation to all or some of those animals. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport must be interpreted as meaning that the authority competent for the payment of export refunds for bovine animals is not bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point on the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the European Union of the animals concerned, according to which the applicable provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 were not adhered to in the context of the transport of those animals, in relation to all or some of those animals.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-543/14) (1)

((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Validity and interpretation of the directive - Services provided by lawyers - Liability to VAT - Right to an effective remedy - Equality of arms - Legal aid))

(2016/C 350/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, Jimmy Tessens and Others, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Intervening parties: Association Syndicale des Magistrats ASBL, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The examination of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the light of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not revealed anything which might affect their validity in so far as those provisions impose VAT on services supplied by lawyers to clients who do not qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The examination of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the light of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not revealed anything which might affect their validity in so far as those provisions impose VAT on services supplied by lawyers to clients who do not qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme.

| 2. | Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998, cannot be relied on for the purposes of assessing the validity of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998, cannot be relied on for the purposes of assessing the validity of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112.

| 3. | Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are not exempt from VAT. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, are not exempt from VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV

(Case C-57/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Legal costs - Lawyers’ fees - Flat-rate reimbursement - Maximum amounts - Costs of a technical adviser - Reimbursement - Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party))

(2016/C 350/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Video Properties Inc.

Defendant: Telenet NV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the successful party, which offers the courts responsible for making that order the possibility of taking into account features specific to the case before it, and provides for a flat-rate scheme for the reimbursement of costs for the assistance of a lawyer, subject to the condition that those rates ensure that the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party are reasonable, which it is for the referring court to determine. However, Article 14 of that directive precludes national legislation providing flat-rates which, owing to the maximum amounts that it contains being too low, do not ensure that, at the very least, that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the successful party, which offers the courts responsible for making that order the possibility of taking into account features specific to the case before it, and provides for a flat-rate scheme for the reimbursement of costs for the assistance of a lawyer, subject to the condition that those rates ensure that the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party are reasonable, which it is for the referring court to determine. However, Article 14 of that directive precludes national legislation providing flat-rates which, owing to the maximum amounts that it contains being too low, do not ensure that, at the very least, that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party;

| 2. | Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing that reimbursement of the costs of a technical adviser are provided for only in the event of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party, given that those costs are directly and closely linked to a judicial action seeking to have such an intellectual property right upheld. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing that reimbursement of the costs of a technical adviser are provided for only in the event of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party, given that those costs are directly and closely linked to a judicial action seeking to have such an intellectual property right upheld.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-80/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties - Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory - Article 555(1)(a) - Commercial use - Concept - Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor - Not included))

(2016/C 350/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flights for helicopter flight instruction, with a trainee pilot and a flight instructor on board, are not to be regarded as constituting commercial use of a means of transport for the purposes of that provision

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-102/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope ratione materiae - Recovery of sum not due - Unjust enrichment - Debt arising from the unjustified repayment of a fine for infringement of competition law))

(2016/C 350/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Defendant: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Operative part of the judgment

An action for recovery of sums not due on the ground of unjust enrichment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has its origin in the repayment of a fine imposed in competition law proceedings does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

(Case C-147/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the environment - Waste management - Directive 2006/21/EC - Article 10(2) - Backfilling of excavation voids using waste other than extractive waste - Landfill or recovery of such waste))

(2016/C 350/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Città Metropolitana di Bari, formerly Provincia di Bari

Defendant: Edilizia Mastrodonato Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC must be interpreted as not having the effect of making an operation entailing the backfilling of a quarry using waste other than extractive waste subject to the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, where that operation amounts to a recovery of waste, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.

(Case C-168/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Credit agreement containing an unfair term - Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term - Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court - Conditions of engagement - Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law))

(2016/C 350/09)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milena Tomášová

Defendants: Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.

Intervening parties: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Member State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of a breach of EU law by a decision of a national court may be incurred only where that decision is made by a court of that Member State adjudicating at last instance, which it is for the referring court to determine in respect of the main proceedings. If that is the case, a decision by that national court adjudicating at last instance may constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, capable of giving rise to that liability, only where, by that decision, that court manifestly infringed the applicable law or where that infringement takes place despite the existence of well-established Court case-law on the matter.
  It cannot be concluded that a national court which, prior to the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Pannon GSM (C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350), failed, in the context of proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award upholding a claim for payment of debts under a contractual term which must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair, although it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose, manifestly disregarded the Court’s case-law on the matter and, therefore, committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Member State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of a breach of EU law by a decision of a national court may be incurred only where that decision is made by a court of that Member State adjudicating at last instance, which it is for the referring court to determine in respect of the main proceedings. If that is the case, a decision by that national court adjudicating at last instance may constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, capable of giving rise to that liability, only where, by that decision, that court manifestly infringed the applicable law or where that infringement takes place despite the existence of well-established Court case-law on the matter.

It cannot be concluded that a national court which, prior to the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Pannon GSM (C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350), failed, in the context of proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award upholding a claim for payment of debts under a contractual term which must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair, although it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose, manifestly disregarded the Court’s case-law on the matter and, therefore, committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.

| 2. | The rules regarding reparation for damage caused by a breach of EU law, such as those concerning the assessment of such damage or the relationship between a claim for that reparation and other remedies which could be available, are determined by the national law of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The rules regarding reparation for damage caused by a breach of EU law, such as those concerning the assessment of such damage or the relationship between a claim for that reparation and other remedies which could be available, are determined by the national law of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl

(Case C-191/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulations (EC) No 864/2007 and (EC) No 593/2008 - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Data protection - Directive 95/46/EC - Online sales contracts concluded with consumers resident in other Member States - Unfair terms - General terms and conditions containing a choice-of-law term applying the law of the Member State in which the company is established - Determination of the applicable law for assessing the unfairness of terms in those general terms and conditions in an action for an injunction - Determination of the law governing the processing of personal data of consumers))

(2016/C 350/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: Amazon EU Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to Article 1(3) of each of those regulations, the law applicable to an action for an injunction within the meaning of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests directed against the use of allegedly unfair contractual terms by an undertaking established in a Member State which concludes contracts in the course of electronic commerce with consumers resident in other Member States, in particular in the State of the court seised, must be determined in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 864/2007, whereas the law applicable to the assessment of a particular contractual term must always be determined pursuant to Regulation No 593/2008, whether that assessment is made in an individual action or in a collective action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to Article 1(3) of each of those regulations, the law applicable to an action for an injunction within the meaning of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests directed against the use of allegedly unfair contractual terms by an undertaking established in a Member State which concludes contracts in the course of electronic commerce with consumers resident in other Member States, in particular in the State of the court seised, must be determined in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 864/2007, whereas the law applicable to the assessment of a particular contractual term must always be determined pursuant to Regulation No 593/2008, whether that assessment is made in an individual action or in a collective action.

| 2. | Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in the general terms and conditions of a seller or supplier which has not been individually negotiated, under which the contract concluded with a consumer in the course of electronic commerce is to be governed by the law of the Member State in which the seller or supplier is established, is unfair in so far as it leads the consumer into error by giving him the impression that only the law of that Member State applies to the contract, without informing him that under Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 he also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would be applicable in the absence of that term, this being for the national court to ascertain in the light of all the relevant circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in the general terms and conditions of a seller or supplier which has not been individually negotiated, under which the contract concluded with a consumer in the course of electronic commerce is to be governed by the law of the Member State in which the seller or supplier is established, is unfair in so far as it leads the consumer into error by giving him the impression that only the law of that Member State applies to the contract, without informing him that under Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 he also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would be applicable in the absence of that term, this being for the national court to ascertain in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

| 3. | Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data carried out by an undertaking engaged in electronic commerce is governed by the law of the Member State to which that undertaking directs its activities, if it is shown that the undertaking carries out the data processing in question in the context of the activities of an establishment situated in that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of personal data carried out by an undertaking engaged in electronic commerce is governed by the law of the Member State to which that undertaking directs its activities, if it is shown that the undertaking carries out the data processing in question in the context of the activities of an establishment situated in that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-240/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 3 - Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges - National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending))

(2016/C 350/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that subjects a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, to provisions of national law applicable to public finances and, in particular, to provisions for limiting and streamlining the spending of public administrative authorities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Johannes Tomana and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-330/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities forming part of the Government of Zimbabwe or linked to it - List of persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellants’ names))

(2016/C 350/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Johannes Tomana and Others (represented by: M. O’Kane, Solicitor, M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents), European Commission (represented by: E. Georgieva, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone

(Case C-332/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 - Right to deduct VAT - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Limitation period - National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements - Tax evasion))

(2016/C 350/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Party in the main proceedings

Giuseppe Astone

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-379/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - National measure incompatible with EU law - Legal consequences - Power of the national court to maintain certain effects of that measure provisionally - Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Obligation to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling))

(2016/C 350/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association France Nature Environnement

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A national court may, when this is allowed by domestic law, exceptionally and case by case, limit in time certain effects of a declaration of the illegality of a provision of national law adopted in disregard of the obligations provided for by Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in particular the obligations arising from Article 6(3) of the directive, provided that such a limitation is dictated by an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case pending before it. That exceptional power may, however, be exercised only if all the conditions flowing from the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103) are satisfied, namely;






  — | the contested provision of national law constitutes a measure correctly transposing EU law on environmental protection; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

A national court may, when this is allowed by domestic law, exceptionally and case by case, limit in time certain effects of a declaration of the illegality of a provision of national law adopted in disregard of the obligations provided for by Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in particular the obligations arising from Article 6(3) of the directive, provided that such a limitation is dictated by an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case pending before it. That exceptional power may, however, be exercised only if all the conditions flowing from the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103) are satisfied, namely;

—

the contested provision of national law constitutes a measure correctly transposing EU law on environmental protection;

| — | that the adoption and coming into force of a new provision of national law do not make it possible to avoid the damaging effects on the environment arising from annulment of the contested provision of national law; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the adoption and coming into force of a new provision of national law do not make it possible to avoid the damaging effects on the environment arising from annulment of the contested provision of national law;

| — | that annulment of the contested provision of national law would have the effect of creating a legal vacuum concerning the transposition of EU law on environmental protection which would be more damaging to the environment, in the sense that that annulment would result in lesser protection and would thus run counter to the essential objective of EU law; and |
| --- | --- |

—

that annulment of the contested provision of national law would have the effect of creating a legal vacuum concerning the transposition of EU law on environmental protection which would be more damaging to the environment, in the sense that that annulment would result in lesser protection and would thus run counter to the essential objective of EU law; and

| — | that any exceptional maintaining of the effects of the contested provision of national law lasts only for the period strictly necessary for the adoption of the measures making it possible to remedy the irregularity found. |
| --- | --- |

—

that any exceptional maintaining of the effects of the contested provision of national law lasts only for the period strictly necessary for the adoption of the measures making it possible to remedy the irregularity found.

| 2. | As EU law now stands, a national court against whose decisions there is no longer any judicial remedy under law is in principle required to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling, so that the Court may assess whether, exceptionally, provisions of national law held to be contrary to EU law may be provisionally maintained in the light of an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and in view of the specific circumstances of the case pending before that national court. That national court is relieved of that obligation only when it is convinced, which it must establish in detail, that no reasonable doubt exists as to the interpretation and application of the conditions set out in the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103). |
| --- | --- |

2.

As EU law now stands, a national court against whose decisions there is no longer any judicial remedy under law is in principle required to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling, so that the Court may assess whether, exceptionally, provisions of national law held to be contrary to EU law may be provisionally maintained in the light of an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and in view of the specific circumstances of the case pending before that national court. That national court is relieved of that obligation only when it is convinced, which it must establish in detail, that no reasonable doubt exists as to the interpretation and application of the conditions set out in the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103).

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-423/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 3(1)(a) - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Article 14(1)(a) - Scope - Definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’ - Application for a post for the purpose of acquiring the formal status of applicant only in order to claim compensation for discrimination - Abuse of rights))

(2016/C 350/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nils-Johannes Kratzer

Defendant: R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Article 14(1)(a) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a person who in making an application for a post does not seek to obtain that post but only seeks the formal status of applicant with the sole purpose of seeking compensation does not fall within the definition of ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’, within the meaning of those provisions, and may, if the requisite conditions under EU law are met, be considered to be an abuse of rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-457/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Temporal scope - Time when the emissions trading obligation arises - Article 3 - Annexe I - Concept of ‘installation’ - Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW))

(2016/C 350/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Generation AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

In so far as Annex I to 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 includes the ‘combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW’ in the list of categories of activities to which that directive applies, it must be interpreted as meaning that the emissions trading obligation of an installation for the generation of electricity starts on the date of the first emissions of greenhouse gases, and thus potentially before the date of the first generation of electricity.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

(Case C-289/16)

(2016/C 350/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

Question referred

Is there already a ‘direct’ sale to the final customer within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (1) where the operator or his sales personnel sells the products to the final customer without the intervention of a third party, or does a ‘direct’ sale additionally require that the sale occurs at the place where the products are stored when both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer are present at the same time?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH

(Case C-354/16)

(2016/C 350/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Kleinsteuber

Defendant: Mars GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | (a) | . Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 (1) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 (2) and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC (3) 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC (4) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and in so doing do not treat income from part-time employment in such a manner that the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment is first determined, the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling is established on that basis, and that proportion is then applied to the reduced income from part-time employment?
  If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

. Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 (1) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 (2) and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC (3) 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC (4) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and in so doing do not treat income from part-time employment in such a manner that the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment is first determined, the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling is established on that basis, and that proportion is then applied to the reduced income from part-time employment?

If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative:

| (b) | Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 and Article 4 of 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and, in the case of an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis, do not take account of specific periods (e.g. individual calendar years) but determine a uniform degree of employment for the total duration of the employment relationship and apply the split pension formula only to the resulting average remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 and Article 4 of 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and, in the case of an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis, do not take account of specific periods (e.g. individual calendar years) but determine a uniform degree of employment for the total duration of the employment relationship and apply the split pension formula only to the resulting average remuneration?

| 2. | Is the relevant EU law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which provide for an occupational old-age pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employee’s actual length of service to the time from the beginning of his employment up to his reaching the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme (calculated on the basis of the pro rata temporis principle) and in so doing apply a maximum limit of reckonable years of service, with the result that employees having completed their period of service in an undertaking at a younger age receive a smaller occupational pension than their colleagues who completed their period of service at an older age, even though both sets of employees completed an equal length of service in the undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the relevant EU law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which provide for an occupational old-age pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employee’s actual length of service to the time from the beginning of his employment up to his reaching the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme (calculated on the basis of the pro rata temporis principle) and in so doing apply a maximum limit of reckonable years of service, with the result that employees having completed their period of service in an undertaking at a younger age receive a smaller occupational pension than their colleagues who completed their period of service at an older age, even though both sets of employees completed an equal length of service in the undertaking?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2)  Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10).

(3)  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 (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

(4)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

(Case C-390/16)

(2016/C 350/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

Dániel Bertold Lada

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 67 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a criminal procedure or other national procedure, governed by national legislation, the purpose of which is the ‘recognition’ or application in a Member State of the validity of a foreign judgment (resulting in the foreign judgment being regarded as having been delivered by a national court), in relation to a defendant in a criminal case in which a final and definitive judgment has already been given by a national court of another Member State of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 67 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a criminal procedure or other national procedure, governed by national legislation, the purpose of which is the ‘recognition’ or application in a Member State of the validity of a foreign judgment (resulting in the foreign judgment being regarded as having been delivered by a national court), in relation to a defendant in a criminal case in which a final and definitive judgment has already been given by a national court of another Member State of the European Union?

| 2. | Is a procedure of a Member State of the European Union, specifically that provided for in Paragraphs 46 to 48 of Hungarian Law No XXXVIII of 1996 ‘for recognition of the validity’ in Hungary [of foreign convictions], relating to criminal proceedings brought in another Member State and culminating there in a final decision (in relation to the same person and to the same acts), compatible with the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (in the light of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA (1) of 24 July 2008), even if in reality that procedure has the purpose not of enforcing such a decision, but of establishing a basis for that decision to be taken into account in criminal proceedings to be brought in the future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a procedure of a Member State of the European Union, specifically that provided for in Paragraphs 46 to 48 of Hungarian Law No XXXVIII of 1996 ‘for recognition of the validity’ in Hungary [of foreign convictions], relating to criminal proceedings brought in another Member State and culminating there in a final decision (in relation to the same person and to the same acts), compatible with the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (in the light of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA (1) of 24 July 2008), even if in reality that procedure has the purpose not of enforcing such a decision, but of establishing a basis for that decision to be taken into account in criminal proceedings to be brought in the future?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings (OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra

(Case C-391/16)

(2016/C 350/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra

Question referred

Is Article 14(4) and (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted invalid on the grounds that it infringes Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of EU law under Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-392/16)

(2016/C 350/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marcu Dumitru

Respondent: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Question referred

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, do Directive 77/388/EEC (1) and Directive 2006/112/EC (2) preclude national legislation or a tax practice according to which the reverse charge mechanism (simplification measures) — which was at the time mandatory for transactions, relating to land, between taxable persons for VAT purposes — is not applicable to a person who has been subject to an investigation and registered, automatically, for VAT purposes following that investigation, on the grounds that that person had not applied for or been granted registration before the transactions were carried out or the ceiling [for exemption] was exceeded?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH

(Case C-422/16)

(2016/C 350/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Trier

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V.

Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 78(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013’) be interpreted as meaning that the definitions, designations and sales descriptions defined in Annex VII need
  not
  satisfy the relevant requirements of this Annex if the relevant definitions, designations and sales descriptions are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive additions (such as ‘tofubutter’ for a pure plant-based product)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 78(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013’) be interpreted as meaning that the definitions, designations and sales descriptions defined in Annex VII need
  not
  satisfy the relevant requirements of this Annex if the relevant definitions, designations and sales descriptions are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive additions (such as ‘tofubutter’ for a pure plant-based product)?

| 2. | Is Annex VII, Part III, point 1, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk’ is exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom, or may the expression ‘milk’ — where necessary with the addition of explanatory terms such as ‘soya-milk’ — also be used in the marketing of plant-based (vegan) products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Annex VII, Part III, point 1, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk’ is exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom, or may the expression ‘milk’ — where necessary with the addition of explanatory terms such as ‘soya-milk’ — also be used in the marketing of plant-based (vegan) products?

| 3. | Is Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in conjunction with Article 78, to be interpreted as meaning that the descriptions listed in detail in point 2(a), such as, in particular, ‘whey’, ‘cream’, ‘butter’, ‘buttermilk’, ‘cheese’, ‘yoghurt’ or the term ‘cream’ etc., are reserved exclusively for milk products, or can pure plant-based/vegan products, which are produced without (animal) milk, also fall within the scope of Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in conjunction with Article 78, to be interpreted as meaning that the descriptions listed in detail in point 2(a), such as, in particular, ‘whey’, ‘cream’, ‘butter’, ‘buttermilk’, ‘cheese’, ‘yoghurt’ or the term ‘cream’ etc., are reserved exclusively for milk products, or can pure plant-based/vegan products, which are produced without (animal) milk, also fall within the scope of Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/18

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2016 by HX against the judgment delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council

(Case C-423/16P)

(2016/C 350/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal to be admissible and well-founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well-founded;

| — | declare that the contested legal act can be partially annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested legal act can be partially annulled;

| — | annul the part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council of the European Union in which HX’s claim was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 June 2016 in Case T-723/14 HX v Council of the European Union in which HX’s claim was rejected;

| — | annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), by which the Council extended the validity of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2016, in so far as it concerns HX; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), by which the Council extended the validity of Decision 2013/255 until 1 June 2016, in so far as it concerns HX;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs, expenses and fees etc incurred by the appellant in connection with its legal representation. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs, expenses and fees etc incurred by the appellant in connection with its legal representation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of EU law: since the decision, in relation to which the claim was rejected, was not personally served on the appellant, although the Council was aware of his address, it is to be accepted that the modification of the claims in connection with those legal acts is admissible and took place within that time-limit. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of EU law: since the decision, in relation to which the claim was rejected, was not personally served on the appellant, although the Council was aware of his address, it is to be accepted that the modification of the claims in connection with those legal acts is admissible and took place within that time-limit.

| 2. | Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the appellant in the following ways:






  — | The absence of a separate written claim does not infringe the rights of the opposing party or render the Court’s work more difficult; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Error in the application of the law, resulting in an infringement of the rules of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the appellant in the following ways:

—

The absence of a separate written claim does not infringe the rights of the opposing party or render the Court’s work more difficult;

| — | The Court failed to take account of the language of the case, since the Bulgarian version of the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily require a separate document. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court failed to take account of the language of the case, since the Bulgarian version of the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily require a separate document.

| — | Infringement of the adversarial principle set out in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, since the Court did not give the appellant the opportunity to familiarise itself with the decision of the Council itself or with the other language versions of the Rules of Procedure, so as to be in a position to prepare its claim in accordance with the linguistic knowledge and expectations of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the adversarial principle set out in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, since the Court did not give the appellant the opportunity to familiarise itself with the decision of the Council itself or with the other language versions of the Rules of Procedure, so as to be in a position to prepare its claim in accordance with the linguistic knowledge and expectations of the Court.

| — | The Court failed to comply with its obligations under Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which required the provision of a possibility, and where necessary an additional deadline, for the presentation of a copy of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 justifying the modification of the claim. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court failed to comply with its obligations under Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which required the provision of a possibility, and where necessary an additional deadline, for the presentation of a copy of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 justifying the modification of the claim.

| — | The Court infringed Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure by failing to fully examine the circumstances of the case in its preliminary report. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court infringed Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure by failing to fully examine the circumstances of the case in its preliminary report.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero

(Case C-424/16)

(2016/C 350/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: Franco Vomero

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.
  If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.

If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred:

| 2. | Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is






  a. | a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is

a.

a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment,

| b. | a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence, |
| --- | --- |

b.

a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence,

| 3. | What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link. |
| --- | --- |

3.

What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link.

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

OJ L 158, p. 77

---

General Court

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/20

---

Action brought on 14 July 2016 — BP Aromatics v Commission

(Case T-371/16)

(2016/C 350/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/20

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Victaulic Europe v Commission

(Case T-373/16)

(2016/C 350/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victaulic Europe (Nazareth, Belgium) (represented by: C. Fairpo, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly classifying the excess profit ruling system as an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by incorrectly classifying the excess profit ruling system as an aid scheme.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by failing to consider whether the alleged aid awards actually provided an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by failing to consider whether the alleged aid awards actually provided an advantage.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in assessing the excess profit ruling system as selective. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in assessing the excess profit ruling system as selective.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the obligation on Belgium to recover the alleged aid awards infringes the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the obligation on Belgium to recover the alleged aid awards infringes the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/21

---

Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri Ocean Energy v Council

(Case T-383/16)

(2016/C 350/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tri Ocean Energy (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125),

| — | annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and

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

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s 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 a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/22

---

Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission

(Case T-388/16)

(2016/C 350/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eval Europe NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

| — | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/23

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — SJM Coordination Center v Commission

(Case T-420/16)

(2016/C 350/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Jude Medical Coordination Center (SJM Coordination Center) (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Louis and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision to the extent that it includes the Applicant among the beneficiaries of the alleged aid scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision to the extent that it includes the Applicant among the beneficiaries of the alleged aid scheme;

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision to the extent that it orders the recovery of any alleged aid amount from the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision to the extent that it orders the recovery of any alleged aid amount from the Applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant.

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 a lack of competence.
  The Applicant puts forward that the Commission lacks competence to issue the contested decision and that the contested decision violates the principle of conferral limiting Union competences. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence.

The Applicant puts forward that the Commission lacks competence to issue the contested decision and that the contested decision violates the principle of conferral limiting Union competences.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard.
  The Applicant puts forward that the Commission’s contradictory positions in its opening decision and in the contested decision have violated the right to be heard of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard.

The Applicant puts forward that the Commission’s contradictory positions in its opening decision and in the contested decision have violated the right to be heard of the Applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a wrong characterisation as an aid scheme.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision erroneously concludes to the existence of a scheme, that the Commission’s approach violates its duty to conduct a comprehensive, diligent and impartial examination of the facts under investigation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a wrong characterisation as an aid scheme.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision erroneously concludes to the existence of a scheme, that the Commission’s approach violates its duty to conduct a comprehensive, diligent and impartial examination of the facts under investigation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons.
  The Applicant puts forward that the Commission does not appropriately state the reasons on which the contested decision was based. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons.

The Applicant puts forward that the Commission does not appropriately state the reasons on which the contested decision was based.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous finding of selectivity under Article 107(1) TFUE.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision errs with regard to all three steps establishing selectivity in numerous ways: (i) Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code (‘Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992’ or ‘CIR’) and the excess profit rule cannot be excluded from from the system of reference; (ii) the ruling received by the Applicant derogates neither (a) from the arm’s length principle, nor (b) from Belgian corporate income tax system; and (iii) the alleged derogation would be justified by the need to avoid double taxation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous finding of selectivity under Article 107(1) TFUE.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision errs with regard to all three steps establishing selectivity in numerous ways: (i) Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code (‘Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992’ or ‘CIR’) and the excess profit rule cannot be excluded from from the system of reference; (ii) the ruling received by the Applicant derogates neither (a) from the arm’s length principle, nor (b) from Belgian corporate income tax system; and (iii) the alleged derogation would be justified by the need to avoid double taxation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of advantage.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision does not analyse the existence of an advantage. According to the Applicant, it has not received an advantage and any benefit to it is in line with the arm’s length principle lais down in Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, which Article 185(2) CIR introduces to Belgian law. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of advantage.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision does not analyse the existence of an advantage. According to the Applicant, it has not received an advantage and any benefit to it is in line with the arm’s length principle lais down in Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, which Article 185(2) CIR introduces to Belgian law.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of equal treatment.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment by (i) claiming that the arm’s length principle entitles tax administrations to increase the tax base of Multinational Enterprises (‘MNE’) and at the same time requiring a concrete risk of double taxation to allow for downward adjustments and (ii) limiting the analysis of an advantage to the level of the Belgian MNE entity. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of equal treatment.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment by (i) claiming that the arm’s length principle entitles tax administrations to increase the tax base of Multinational Enterprises (‘MNE’) and at the same time requiring a concrete risk of double taxation to allow for downward adjustments and (ii) limiting the analysis of an advantage to the level of the Belgian MNE entity.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty and legality.
  The contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty by (i) breaking with case law and its own Commission previous practice and (ii) a lack of identification of the alleged advantage. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty and legality.

The contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty by (i) breaking with case law and its own Commission previous practice and (ii) a lack of identification of the alleged advantage.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging recovery results in double taxation.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision errs to assume that there can be no double taxation concern, which would increase if the Applicant was ordered to pay any amount in the recovery process. According to the Applicant, the contested decision must therefore be annulled, to the extent that it orders Belgium to recover any amount from the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging recovery results in double taxation.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision errs to assume that there can be no double taxation concern, which would increase if the Applicant was ordered to pay any amount in the recovery process. According to the Applicant, the contested decision must therefore be annulled, to the extent that it orders Belgium to recover any amount from the Applicant.

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that recovery cannot be subjected to commission discretion.
  The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision appears to grant the Commission discretionary power to reject adaptations of the taxpayer’s taxable basis based on actual factual circumstances at the time the Ruling was obtained. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that recovery cannot be subjected to commission discretion.

The Applicant puts forward that the contested decision appears to grant the Commission discretionary power to reject adaptations of the taxpayer’s taxable basis based on actual factual circumstances at the time the Ruling was obtained.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/24

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Sensi Vigne & Vini v EUIPO — El Grifo (CONTADO DEL GRIFO)

(Case T-434/16)

(2016/C 350/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sensi Vigne & Vini Srl (Lamporecchio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Grifo, SA (San Bartolomé de Lanzarote, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CONTADO DEL GRIFO’ — Application for registration No 12 097 416

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2016 in Case R 2218/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside EUIPO’s decision of 25 May 2016 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside EUIPO’s decision of 25 May 2016 in its entirety;

| — | uphold the present action, ruling on the substance of the case in favour of registration of EU Trade Mark No 12 097 416, filed on 28 August 2013 in Class 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action, ruling on the substance of the case in favour of registration of EU Trade Mark No 12 097 416, filed on 28 August 2013 in Class 33;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those before EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/25

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — holyGhost v EUIPO — CBM (holyGhost)

(Case T-439/16)

(2016/C 350/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: holyGhost GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiedemann and S. Engbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘holyGhost’ — Application for registration No 11 757 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2016 in Case R 2867/2014-5

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/26

---

Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission

(Case T-444/16)

(2016/C 350/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vasco Group (Dilsen-Stokkem, Belgium) and Astra Sweets (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

| — | in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.

---

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/27

---

Action brought on 4 August 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO — Yokohama Rubber (Representation of a tyre tread)

(Case T-447/16)

(2016/C 350/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark (representation of a tyre tread — EU trade mark No 2 319 176)

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2583/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it declared the trademark invalid and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of proceedings before the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it declared the trademark invalid and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of proceedings before the Office.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(e) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(e) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---