# Official Journal C 287/8 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 287 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 598 August 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 287

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 598 August 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 287/01 | 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 287/01

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 287/02 | Case C-205/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of slots at European Union airports — Article 4(2) — Independence of the coordinator — Concept of interested party — Airport managing body — Functional separation — System of financing) | 2 |
| 2016/C 287/03 | Joined Cases C-226/14 and C-228/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-226/14), DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (C-228/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Customs warehousing — External transit procedure — Incurrence of a customs debt as a result of non-fulfilment of an obligation — Chargeability of value added tax) | 2 |
| 2016/C 287/04 | Case C-233/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Derogation from the principle of equal treatment — Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans — Scope — Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings — Coherent statement of the pleas in law) | 3 |
| 2016/C 287/05 | Case C-252/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Taxation of pension funds’ income — Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds — Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield — Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds — Whether comparable) | 4 |
| 2016/C 287/06 | Case C-355/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Pleven — Bulgaria) — Polihim-SS EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Chargeability of excise duties — Article 7(2) — Concept of departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 14(1)(a) — Use of energy products to produce electricity — Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse — Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity — Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the consignee of the products in the tax documents — Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty — Refusal of exemption — Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty — Proportionality) | 5 |
| 2016/C 287/07 | Case C-410/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Concept of public contract — Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria — Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme — Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate — Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract) | 6 |
| 2016/C 287/08 | Case C-418/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu -Poland) — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2003/96/EC — Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels — Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels — Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes — Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted — Principle of proportionality) | 7 |
| 2016/C 287/09 | Case C-438/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles — Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality — Name comprising tokens of nobility — Residence in the first Member State — Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status — Justification — Public policy — Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law) | 8 |
| 2016/C 287/10 | Case C-27/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Participation in a call for tenders — Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria — Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission) | 8 |
| 2016/C 287/11 | Case C-31/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty) | 9 |
| 2016/C 287/12 | Case C-81/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements governing excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper — Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling — Principles of proportionality and legal certainty) | 10 |
| 2016/C 287/13 | Case C-117/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(2) — Concept of communication to the public — Installation of television sets by the operator of a rehabilitation centre making it possible for patients to watch television programmes) | 10 |
| 2016/C 287/14 | Case C-122/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income — Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 — Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation) | 11 |
| 2016/C 287/15 | Case C-241/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 8(1)(c) — Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an arrest warrant — No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant — Effect) | 12 |
| 2016/C 287/16 | Case C-263/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Definition of taxable person for the purposes of value added tax and economic activity — Article 24(1) — Definition of supply of services — Agricultural engineering works — Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company — Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid) | 12 |
| 2016/C 287/17 | Case C-229/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro | 13 |
| 2016/C 287/18 | Case C-296/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2016 by Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission | 14 |
| 2016/C 287/19 | Case C-303/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics | 16 |
| 2016/C 287/20 | Case C-314/16: Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic | 16 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 287/21 | Case T-208/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard to the extent permitted by law — Obligation to provide reasons — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses) | 18 |
| 2016/C 287/22 | Case T-216/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard to the extent permitted by law — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses) | 19 |
| 2016/C 287/23 | Case T-652/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Action for annulment — Award decision — No direct concern — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — System for excluding tenders — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage) | 19 |
| 2016/C 287/24 | Case T-656/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler) (EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a formwork coupler — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2016/C 287/25 | Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative marks animal — Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law by EUIPO — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based — Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95) | 21 |
| 2016/C 287/26 | Case T-134/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — salesforce.com, Inc. v EUIPO (SOCIAL.COM) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark SOCIAL.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 21 |
| 2016/C 287/27 | Case T-409/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union (Action for damages — Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court — No need to adjudicate) | 22 |
| 2016/C 287/28 | Case T-252/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale) | 23 |
| 2016/C 287/29 | Case T-253/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale) | 23 |
| 2016/C 287/30 | Case T-264/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission | 24 |
| 2016/C 287/31 | Case T-267/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Tarmac Trading v Commission | 25 |
| 2016/C 287/32 | Case T-305/16: Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE) | 26 |
| 2016/C 287/33 | Case T-308/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence) | 27 |
| 2016/C 287/34 | Case T-313/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission | 28 |
| 2016/C 287/35 | Case T-315/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly) | 29 |
| 2016/C 287/36 | Case T-316/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S) | 30 |
| 2016/C 287/37 | Case T-317/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU) | 31 |
| 2016/C 287/38 | Case T-318/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S) | 31 |
| 2016/C 287/39 | Case T-326/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel) | 32 |
| 2016/C 287/40 | Case T-327/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE) | 33 |
| 2016/C 287/41 | Case T-341/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission | 34 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 287/42 | Case F-40/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council (Civil service — Assessment — Staff report — Interest in bringing proceedings — Downgrading of analytical assessments — Referral to the Reports Committee — Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to provide a statement of reasons — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff) | 35 |
| 2016/C 287/43 | Case F-118/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 28 June 2016 — Kotula v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials recommended for promotion by the Directors-General and Heads of Department — Omission of the applicant’s name — Inter-institutional transfer — Taking into account staff reports drawn up by the previous institution — Possibility of contesting the list of officials recommended for promotion before the Joint Promotions Committee — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion) | 35 |
| 2016/C 287/44 | Case F-142/11 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Officials — Upgrade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded) | 36 |
| 2016/C 287/45 | Case F-22/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA | 37 |
| 2016/C 287/46 | Case F-115/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission | 37 |
| 2016/C 287/47 | Case F-57/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission | 37 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 287/02

Case C-205/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 — Allocation of slots at European Union airports — Article 4(2) — Independence of the coordinator — Concept of interested party — Airport managing body — Functional separation — System of financing)

2

2016/C 287/03

Joined Cases C-226/14 and C-228/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-226/14), DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (C-228/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Customs warehousing — External transit procedure — Incurrence of a customs debt as a result of non-fulfilment of an obligation — Chargeability of value added tax)

2

2016/C 287/04

Case C-233/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Derogation from the principle of equal treatment — Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans — Scope — Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings — Coherent statement of the pleas in law)

3

2016/C 287/05

Case C-252/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Taxation of pension funds’ income — Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds — Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield — Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds — Whether comparable)

4

2016/C 287/06

Case C-355/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Pleven — Bulgaria) — Polihim-SS EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Chargeability of excise duties — Article 7(2) — Concept of departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 14(1)(a) — Use of energy products to produce electricity — Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse — Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity — Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the consignee of the products in the tax documents — Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty — Refusal of exemption — Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty — Proportionality)

5

2016/C 287/07

Case C-410/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Concept of public contract — Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria — Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme — Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate — Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract)

6

2016/C 287/08

Case C-418/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu -Poland) — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2003/96/EC — Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels — Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels — Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes — Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted — Principle of proportionality)

7

2016/C 287/09

Case C-438/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles — Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality — Name comprising tokens of nobility — Residence in the first Member State — Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status — Justification — Public policy — Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law)

8

2016/C 287/10

Case C-27/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Participation in a call for tenders — Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria — Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

8

2016/C 287/11

Case C-31/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty)

9

2016/C 287/12

Case C-81/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements governing excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper — Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling — Principles of proportionality and legal certainty)

10

2016/C 287/13

Case C-117/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(2) — Concept of communication to the public — Installation of television sets by the operator of a rehabilitation centre making it possible for patients to watch television programmes)

10

2016/C 287/14

Case C-122/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income — Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 — Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation)

11

2016/C 287/15

Case C-241/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 8(1)(c) — Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an arrest warrant — No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant — Effect)

12

2016/C 287/16

Case C-263/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Definition of taxable person for the purposes of value added tax and economic activity — Article 24(1) — Definition of supply of services — Agricultural engineering works — Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company — Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid)

12

2016/C 287/17

Case C-229/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

13

2016/C 287/18

Case C-296/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2016 by Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG

European Commission

14

2016/C 287/19

Case C-303/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

16

2016/C 287/20

Case C-314/16: Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

16

General Court

2016/C 287/21

Case T-208/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard to the extent permitted by law — Obligation to provide reasons — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses)

18

2016/C 287/22

Case T-216/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets — Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo — Statutory safeguard to the extent permitted by law — Infringement by object — Ancillary restriction — Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct — Potential competition — Infringement by effects — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Request for the hearing of witnesses)

19

2016/C 287/23

Case T-652/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Action for annulment — Award decision — No direct concern — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — System for excluding tenders — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)

19

2016/C 287/24

Case T-656/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler) (EU trade mark — Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a formwork coupler — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2016/C 287/25

Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative marks animal — Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law by EUIPO — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based — Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

21

2016/C 287/26

Case T-134/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — salesforce.com, Inc. v EUIPO (SOCIAL.COM) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark SOCIAL.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

21

2016/C 287/27

Case T-409/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union (Action for damages — Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court — No need to adjudicate)

22

2016/C 287/28

Case T-252/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

23

2016/C 287/29

Case T-253/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

23

2016/C 287/30

Case T-264/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission

24

2016/C 287/31

Case T-267/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Tarmac Trading v Commission

25

2016/C 287/32

Case T-305/16: Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)

26

2016/C 287/33

Case T-308/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)

27

2016/C 287/34

Case T-313/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

28

2016/C 287/35

Case T-315/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

29

2016/C 287/36

Case T-316/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)

30

2016/C 287/37

Case T-317/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

31

2016/C 287/38

Case T-318/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

31

2016/C 287/39

Case T-326/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

32

2016/C 287/40

Case T-327/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

33

2016/C 287/41

Case T-341/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

De Masi

Commission

34

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 287/42

Case F-40/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council (Civil service — Assessment — Staff report — Interest in bringing proceedings — Downgrading of analytical assessments — Referral to the Reports Committee — Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to provide a statement of reasons — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff)

35

2016/C 287/43

Case F-118/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 28 June 2016 — Kotula v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials recommended for promotion by the Directors-General and Heads of Department — Omission of the applicant’s name — Inter-institutional transfer — Taking into account staff reports drawn up by the previous institution — Possibility of contesting the list of officials recommended for promotion before the Joint Promotions Committee — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion)

35

2016/C 287/44

Case F-142/11 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Officials — Upgrade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

36

2016/C 287/45

Case F-22/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

37

2016/C 287/46

Case F-115/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

37

2016/C 287/47

Case F-57/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

37

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/1

---

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

(2016/C 287/01)

Last publication

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

Past publications

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016

OJ C 232, 27.6.2016

OJ C 222, 20.6.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-205/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 - Allocation of slots at European Union airports - Article 4(2) - Independence of the coordinator - Concept of ‘interested party’ - Airport managing body - Functional separation - System of financing))

(2016/C 287/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and V. Moura Ramos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to ensure that the coordinator for the allocation of slots is independent by separating the coordinator functionally from any single interested party and by failing to ensure that the system of financing the coordinator’s activities is such as to guarantee the coordinator’s independent status, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure that the coordinator for the allocation of slots is independent by separating the coordinator functionally from any single interested party and by failing to ensure that the system of financing the coordinator’s activities is such as to guarantee the coordinator’s independent status, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 545/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009;

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-226/14), DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (C-228/14)

(Joined Cases C-226/14 and C-228/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Customs warehousing - External transit procedure - Incurrence of a customs debt as a result of non-fulfilment of an obligation - Chargeability of value added tax))

(2016/C 287/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eurogate Distribution GmbH (C-226/14), DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH (C-228/14)

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (C-226/14), Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (C-228/14)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(3) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in that provision at the date of their re-exportation but were removed from that arrangement as a result of their re-exportation, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(3) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in that provision at the date of their re-exportation but were removed from that arrangement as a result of their re-exportation, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005.

| 2. | Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, read in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in Article 61 of that directive, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, nobody is liable for payment of the value added tax. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as not being applicable in situations relating to the repayment of value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, read in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in Article 61 of that directive, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, nobody is liable for payment of the value added tax. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as not being applicable in situations relating to the repayment of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-233/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment - Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans - Scope - Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings - Coherent statement of the pleas in law))

(2016/C 287/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and C. Gheorghiu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket

(Case C-252/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Taxation of pension funds’ income - Difference in treatment of resident and non-resident pension funds - Resident pension funds subject to lump sum taxation on the basis of a notional yield - Withholding tax applied to dividends received by non-resident pension funds - Whether comparable))

(2016/C 287/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:

| — | not precluding national legislation under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax levied at source (a withholding tax) where those dividends are paid to a non-resident pension fund and, where those dividends are paid to a resident pension fund, to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a notional yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital under the general law regime; |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation under which the dividends distributed by a resident company are subject to a tax levied at source (a withholding tax) where those dividends are paid to a non-resident pension fund and, where those dividends are paid to a resident pension fund, to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a notional yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital under the general law regime;

| — | nevertheless precluding non-resident pension funds being prevented from taking into account any professional expenses directly linked to the receipt of dividends, where the calculation method for the tax base of resident pension funds allows them to be taken into account, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

—

nevertheless precluding non-resident pension funds being prevented from taking into account any professional expenses directly linked to the receipt of dividends, where the calculation method for the tax base of resident pension funds allows them to be taken into account, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Pleven — Bulgaria) — ‘Polihim-SS’ EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov

(Case C-355/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Chargeability of excise duties - Article 7(2) - Concept of ‘departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement’ - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 14(1)(a) - Use of energy products to produce electricity - Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse - Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity - Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the ‘consignee’ of the products in the tax documents - Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty - Refusal of exemption - Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty - Proportionality))

(2016/C 287/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad Pleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Polihim-SS’ EOOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov

Intervening party: Okrazhna prokuratura Pleven

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of excise goods held by an authorised warehousekeeper in a tax warehouse does not bring about their release for consumption until the time at which those goods are physically removed from that tax warehouse. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of excise goods held by an authorised warehousekeeper in a tax warehouse does not bring about their release for consumption until the time at which those goods are physically removed from that tax warehouse.

| 2. | Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, read in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 2008/118, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by the national authorities to exempt from excise duty energy products which, after having been sold by an authorised warehousekeeper to an intermediate purchaser, are sold on by that purchaser to an end-user who satisfies all the requirements under national law to benefit from an exemption of excise duty on those products and to whom those products are delivered directly by that authorised warehousekeeper from his tax warehouse, on the sole ground that the intermediate purchaser, declared by that warehousekeeper as the consignee of those products, does not have the status of end-user authorised under national law to receive energy products exempt from excise duty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, read in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 2008/118, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by the national authorities to exempt from excise duty energy products which, after having been sold by an authorised warehousekeeper to an intermediate purchaser, are sold on by that purchaser to an end-user who satisfies all the requirements under national law to benefit from an exemption of excise duty on those products and to whom those products are delivered directly by that authorised warehousekeeper from his tax warehouse, on the sole ground that the intermediate purchaser, declared by that warehousekeeper as the consignee of those products, does not have the status of end-user authorised under national law to receive energy products exempt from excise duty.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany — Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v DAK-Gesundheit

(Case C-410/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) - Concept of ‘public contract’ - Scheme for acquiring goods consisting of the authorisation as a supplier of any economic operator who meets the predetermined criteria - Supply of medicinal products that are refundable under a general social security scheme - Contracts concluded between a statutory health insurance fund and all the suppliers of medicinal products based on a given active ingredient who consent to a rebate on the sale price at a predetermined rate - Legislation providing, in principle, for the substitution of a refundable medicinal product marketed by an operator not having concluded such a contract by a medicinal product of the same type marketed by an operator having concluded such a contract))

(2016/C 287/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH

Defendant: DAK-Gesundheit

Intervener: Kohlpharma GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contract scheme, such as that in the main proceedings, through which a public entity intends to acquire goods on the market by contracting throughout the period of validity of that scheme with any economic operator who undertakes to provide the goods concerned in accordance with predetermined conditions, without choosing between the interested operators and, allows them to accede to that scheme throughout its validity, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contract scheme, such as that in the main proceedings, through which a public entity intends to acquire goods on the market by contracting throughout the period of validity of that scheme with any economic operator who undertakes to provide the goods concerned in accordance with predetermined conditions, without choosing between the interested operators and, allows them to accede to that scheme throughout its validity, does not constitute a public contract within the meaning of that directive.

| 2. | In so far as the subject matter of an authorisation procedure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is of certain cross-border interest, that procedure must be conceived and organised in accordance with the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment between economic operators and the consequent obligation of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as the subject matter of an authorisation procedure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is of certain cross-border interest, that procedure must be conceived and organised in accordance with the fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty, in particular, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment between economic operators and the consequent obligation of transparency.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu -Poland) — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-418/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2003/96/EC - Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels - Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels - Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes - Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted - Principle of proportionality))

(2016/C 287/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as:

| — | not precluding national legislation under which sellers of heating fuel are required to submit, within a prescribed time limit, a monthly list of statements from purchasers that the products purchased are for heating purposes, and |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation under which sellers of heating fuel are required to submit, within a prescribed time limit, a monthly list of statements from purchasers that the products purchased are for heating purposes, and

| — | precluding national legislation under which, if a list of statements from purchasers is not submitted within a prescribed time limit, the excise duty applicable for motor fuels is applied to the heating fuel sold, even though it has been found that the intended use of that product for heating purposes is not in doubt. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding national legislation under which, if a list of statements from purchasers is not submitted within a prescribed time limit, the excise duty applicable for motor fuels is applied to the heating fuel sold, even though it has been found that the intended use of that product for heating purposes is not in doubt.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

(Case C-438/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles - Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality - Name comprising tokens of nobility - Residence in the first Member State - Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status - Justification - Public policy - Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law))

(2016/C 287/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

Defendants: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are not bound to recognise the name of a citizen of that Member State when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Pippo Pizzo v CRGT Srl

(Case C-27/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Participation in a call for tenders - Possibility of relying on the capacities of other undertakings in order to satisfy the necessary criteria - Failure to pay a fee not expressly provided for - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))

(2016/C 287/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pippo Pizzo

Defendant: CRGT Srl

Interested parties and interveners: Autorità Portuale di Messina, Messina Sud Srl, Francesco Todaro, Myleco Sas

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 47 and 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an economic operator to rely on the capacities of one or more third-party entities for the purpose of satisfying the minimum requirements for participating in a tendering procedure which are only partially satisfied by that operator. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 47 and 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows an economic operator to rely on the capacities of one or more third-party entities for the purpose of satisfying the minimum requirements for participating in a tendering procedure which are only partially satisfied by that operator.

| 2. | The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from being excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract as a result of that economic operator’s non-compliance with an obligation which does not expressly arise from the documents relating to that procedure or out of the national law in force, but from an interpretation of that law and those documents and from the incorporation of provisions into those documents by the national authorities or administrative courts. Accordingly, the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an economic operator from being allowed to regularise its position and comply with that obligation within a period of time set by the contracting authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from being excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract as a result of that economic operator’s non-compliance with an obligation which does not expressly arise from the documents relating to that procedure or out of the national law in force, but from an interpretation of that law and those documents and from the incorporation of provisions into those documents by the national authorities or administrative courts. Accordingly, the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an economic operator from being allowed to regularise its position and comply with that obligation within a period of time set by the contracting authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV

(Case C-31/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty))

(2016/C 287/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented initially by B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie AISBL, Confindustria Ceramica, Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV (represented by: R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Photo USA Electronic Graphic Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon

(Case C-81/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements governing excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper - Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling - Principles of proportionality and legal certainty))

(2016/C 287/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

Defendant: Ypourgos Oikonomikon

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in the light of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits, inter alia, the owners of products moving under excise duty suspension arrangements to be declared jointly and severally liable for payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed in the event of the commission of an offence during the movement of those products under excise duty suspension, where the owners are linked to the perpetrators of the offence by a contractual relationship making them their agents — under which the authorised warehousekeeper is declared jointly and severally liable for payment of those sums, with no possibility for him to escape that liability by providing proof that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the acts of the perpetrators of the offence, even if, under national law, that warehousekeeper was neither the owner of those products at the time when the offence was committed nor linked to the perpetrators of that offence by a contractual relationship making them his agents.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA)

(Case C-117/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Installation of television sets by the operator of a rehabilitation centre making it possible for patients to watch television programmes))

(2016/C 287/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reha Training Gesellschaft für Sport- und Unfallrehabilitation mbH

Defendant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte eV (GEMA)

Intervening parties: Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL)

Operative part of the judgment

In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is alleged that the broadcast of television programmes by means of television sets that the operator of a rehabilitation centre has installed in its premises affects the copyright and related rights of a large number of interested parties, in particular, composers, songwriters and music publishers, but also performers, phonogramme producers and authors of literary works and their publishers, it must be determined whether such a situation constitutes a ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of both Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and in accordance with the same interpretive criteria. Furthermore, those two provisions must be interpreted as meaning that such a broadcast constitutes an act of ‘communication to the public’.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C

(Case C-122/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income - Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 - Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation))

(2016/C 287/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

C

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a supplementary tax on pension income, does not fall within the substantive scope of that directive nor, therefore, is it covered by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj v Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

(Case C-241/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 8(1)(c) - Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ - No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant - Effect))

(2016/C 287/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj

Defendant: Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘arrest warrant’, as used in that provision, must be understood as referring to a national arrest warrant that is distinct from the European arrest warrant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘arrest warrant’, as used in that provision, must be understood as referring to a national arrest warrant that is distinct from the European arrest warrant.

| 2. | Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant based on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ within the meaning of that provision does not contain any reference to the existence of a national arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority must refuse to give effect to it if, in the light of the information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and any other information available to it, that authority concludes that the European arrest warrant is not valid because it was in fact issued in the absence of any national warrant separate from the European arrest warrant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant based on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ within the meaning of that provision does not contain any reference to the existence of a national arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority must refuse to give effect to it if, in the light of the information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and any other information available to it, that authority concludes that the European arrest warrant is not valid because it was in fact issued in the absence of any national warrant separate from the European arrest warrant.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

(Case C-263/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Definition of ‘taxable person for the purposes of value added tax’ and ‘economic activity’ - Article 24(1) - Definition of ‘supply of services’ - Agricultural engineering works - Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company - Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid))

(2016/C 287/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by a non-profit company which engages in such commercial activities only on an ancillary basis, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that those works have in large part been financed by State aid and that their operation gives rise only to revenue from modest fees, provided that that fee can be regarded as having a ‘continuing basis’ on account of the period of time during which it is to be charged. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by a non-profit company which engages in such commercial activities only on an ancillary basis, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that those works have in large part been financed by State aid and that their operation gives rise only to revenue from modest fees, provided that that fee can be regarded as having a ‘continuing basis’ on account of the period of time during which it is to be charged.

| 2. | Article 24 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a supply of services for consideration, on the ground that the services rendered are directly linked to the fee received or to be received, provided that that modest fee constitutes remuneration for the service supplied and notwithstanding the fact that performance of those services is a legal obligation. It is for the referring court to determine whether the amount of the fee received or to be received, qua consideration, means that there exists a direct link between the services supplied or to be supplied and that consideration, and consequently allows those services to be classified as being effected for consideration. In particular, the referring court will have to ascertain that the fee which the applicants in the main proceedings are planning to charge does not only partly remunerate the services supplied or to be supplied and that its amount has not been determined as a result of other possible factors that could, depending on the circumstances, call into question the direct link between the services supplied and the consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 24 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a supply of services for consideration, on the ground that the services rendered are directly linked to the fee received or to be received, provided that that modest fee constitutes remuneration for the service supplied and notwithstanding the fact that performance of those services is a legal obligation. It is for the referring court to determine whether the amount of the fee received or to be received, qua consideration, means that there exists a direct link between the services supplied or to be supplied and that consideration, and consequently allows those services to be classified as being effected for consideration. In particular, the referring court will have to ascertain that the fee which the applicants in the main proceedings are planning to charge does not only partly remunerate the services supplied or to be supplied and that its amount has not been determined as a result of other possible factors that could, depending on the circumstances, call into question the direct link between the services supplied and the consideration.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

(Case C-229/16)

(2016/C 287/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P.

Defendant: João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

Questions referred

| A. | Does Directive 2000/35/EC (1) ... of 29 June 2000 apply, in the light of recital 13 of that directive, to the system for the payment of the State’s contributions to the cost of medicinal products dispensed to members of the SNS, established by Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and implemented by Order No 3- B/2007? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Does Directive 2000/35/EC (1) ... of 29 June 2000 apply, in the light of recital 13 of that directive, to the system for the payment of the State’s contributions to the cost of medicinal products dispensed to members of the SNS, established by Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and implemented by Order No 3- B/2007?

| B. | In the event that it does apply, is it possible to conclude from Articles 5 and 6 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 the existence of an adhesion contract capable of falling within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned directive in view of the fact that it is possible to adhere to or be released from that contract, depending on whether or not medicinal products are dispensed? |
| --- | --- |

B.

In the event that it does apply, is it possible to conclude from Articles 5 and 6 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 the existence of an adhesion contract capable of falling within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned directive in view of the fact that it is possible to adhere to or be released from that contract, depending on whether or not medicinal products are dispensed?

| C. | Are Article 8 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and Articles 8 and 10 of Order No 3-B/2007, in making provision for monthly invoicing, compatible with Directive 2000/35 ... (Article 3(1)(b)(i))? |
| --- | --- |

C.

Are Article 8 of Decree-Law No 242-B/2006 and Articles 8 and 10 of Order No 3-B/2007, in making provision for monthly invoicing, compatible with Directive 2000/35 ... (Article 3(1)(b)(i))?

| D. | Is it possible to regard Article 10 of Order No 3-B/2007 as falling within the scope of [Article 3(2)] of the abovementioned directive, where it provides that the deadline for payment is to be the 10th day of the month following the one in which the invoice was received? |
| --- | --- |

D.

Is it possible to regard Article 10 of Order No 3-B/2007 as falling within the scope of [Article 3(2)] of the abovementioned directive, where it provides that the deadline for payment is to be the 10th day of the month following the one in which the invoice was received?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/14

---

Appeal brought on 25 May 2016 by Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-296/16 P)

(2016/C 287/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15.
  Should the appeal be declared to be well-founded, the appellant claims that the Court should uphold, in its entirety, the form of order sought at first instance, namely:






  1. | annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 (1) of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016 in Case T-100/15.

Should the appeal be declared to be well-founded, the appellant claims that the Court should uphold, in its entirety, the form of order sought at first instance, namely:

1.

annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 (1) of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the appellant criticises the General Court’s standard of review for being incorrect.

By assessing that, in the case of ‘highly complex scientific and technical facts’, the exercise of discretion by the defendant is subject merely to a control of fairness, the General Court from the outset dispensed with a large area of discretionary assessment which must, however, in actual fact be appreciated by the General Court and the Court of Justice. The General Court and the Court of Justice are not restricted to merely controlling the fairness of the defendant’s exercise of discretion. On the contrary, a judicial review can and must be carried out as to whether the defendant correctly interpreted the requirements set out by the European legislator in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and thereby correctly exercised its discretion. In judicial examinations, every form of misuse of discretion must also be examined. That did not occur due to the erroneous weighting and evaluation of the ‘other legitimate factors relevant to the issue under consideration’.

In addition, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and in doing so relies on three pleas in law:

First, the non-admission of the health-related information at issue is based on errors of assessment made by the defendant. That results first of all from the hierarchy of the relevant legitimate factors provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Not every consideration of a legitimate and relevant factor may also justify a non-admission of factually correct and scientifically sufficiently secured health-related information. According to the appellant, pursuant to recital 17 in the preamble to the regulation, that information cannot be the ‘main aspect’ for the decision to grant authorisation. ‘Scientific substantiation’ should be ‘taken into account’ as the ‘main aspect’ in health-related information. That weighting was also reflected in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The authority’s view is mentioned there in first place.

Secondly, the defendant also incorrectly exercised its discretion under Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 because it wrongly assumed that the applicant’s information could send a ‘conflicting and confusing message to consumers’. A reference to proven effects of glucose neither means that sugar should be consumed or consumed to an increased extent, nor that there are any third party recommendations to reduce sugar consumption. A contradiction cannot therefore be in discussion — this is particularly the case in so far as the healthy, active and endurance-trained men and women specifically named in the form of order are at issue.

Thirdly, a further error of assessment committed by the defendant in the context of Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 arises out of the fact that it wrongly assumed that the applicant’s information is ambiguous and misleading. In order to mislead a prudent average consumer, the applicant’s health-related information would have to be suited for deception. Precisely that is not the case.

In addition, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of proportionality:

The defendant’s non-admission of the applicant’s health-related information infringes the principle of proportionality. As an organ of the European Union, when exercising discretion, the defendant is bound by the principle of proportionality within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 5(4) TEU. If generally recognised nutritional and health principles constitute the only reason for the non-admission of the applicant’s health-related information, without the specific circumstances of the individual case being sufficiently observed, an infringement of the principle of proportionality lies therein. This is because general principles would not necessitate any rejection of the applicant’s form of order in the particular case, but would at best prompt specific conditions for use and labelling rules as a less restrictive measure. In addition, even from a nutritional and health point of view, an unconditional blanket ban brought about by the non-admission of the factually correct and scientifically sufficiently secured health-related information is not an appropriate measure to attain a high level of consumer protection.

Finally, the appellant alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment:

The non-admission of the health-related information applied for also manifestly infringes the principle of equal treatment. The defendant treats the admissions in comparable cases differently although there are no objective reasons for unequal treatment.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

(Case C-303/16)

(2016/C 287/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Solar Electric Martinique

Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Question referred

Does the sale and installation of photovoltaic panels and solar water heaters on buildings, or with a view to supplying electricity or hot water to buildings, constitute a single transaction that may be characterised as works of construction for the purposes of Article 5(5) and Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, (1) now Article 14(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

---

(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).

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/16

---

Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-314/16)

(2016/C 287/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and J. Hottiaux

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that:






  (a) | by failing to ensure that the definition of groups C1 and C relates only to vehicles other than vehicles in groups D 1 and D, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

declare that:

(a)

by failing to ensure that the definition of groups C1 and C relates only to vehicles other than vehicles in groups D 1 and D, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC;

| (b) | by restricting the definition of group D1 to vehicles designed and constructed for more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by restricting the definition of group D1 to vehicles designed and constructed for more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC; (1)

| 2. | order Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC provides that driving licences are to authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined in that article. Under Article 4(4)(d) and (f) of the Directive, the groups C1 and C are further defined. The condition that the group must include vehicles ‘other than those in categories D1 or D’ is expressly provided for in respect of both groups. The Czech legislation defining vehicle groups however does not include the condition that groups C1 and C must be restricted to ‘motor vehicles other than those in categories D1 or D’.

Article 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC defines group D1 as a group including vehicles ‘designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than 16 passengers in addition to the driver’, without providing for a minimum number of passengers. The Czech legislation however includes the additional requirement that vehicles intended for the carriage of more than 8 passengers are to be classified in group D1.

---

(1)  OJ L 403, p. 18.

---

General Court

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Portugal Telecom v Commission

(Case T-208/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Obligation to provide reasons - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))

(2016/C 287/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and R. Bordalo Junqueiro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and T. Christoforou, and, subsequently, C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Subject matter

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA at EUR 12 290 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA at EUR 12 290 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Portugal Telecom SGPS to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Portugal Telecom SGPS. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Portugal Telecom SGPS to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Portugal Telecom SGPS.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T-216/13) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause in relation to the Iberian market inserted into the agreement for the acquisition by Telefónica of the share held by Portugal Telecom in the Brazilian mobile operator Vivo - Statutory safeguard ‘to the extent permitted by law’ - Infringement by object - Ancillary restriction - Autonomy of the applicant’s conduct - Potential competition - Infringement by effects - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Request for the hearing of witnesses))

(2016/C 287/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Peinado Iríbar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Subject matter

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Telefónica, SA at EUR 66 894 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom) in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Telefónica, SA at EUR 66 894 000, to the extent that that amount was fixed on the basis of the value of the sales taken into account by the European Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Telefónica to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Telefónica. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Telefónica to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Telefónica.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO

(Case T-652/14) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices - Rejection of a tenderer’s tender - Action for annulment - Award decision - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Proportionality - System for excluding tenders - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage))

(2016/C 287/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: AF Steelcase SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently N. Bambara and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EUIPO’s decision of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices (OJ 2014/S 023-035020) and the decisions related to the decision rejecting the applicant’s tender, including, if necessary, the award decision, and an application for the tender procedure to be resumed at the stage before the decision of 8 July 2014 and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AF Steelcase SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AF Steelcase SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler)

(Case T-656/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a formwork coupler - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 287/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Eck, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2014 (Case R 1178/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a formwork coupler as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal)

(Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative marks animal - Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law by EUIPO - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based - Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 287/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: H Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor, and A. Roughton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Cases R 2054/2013-1 and R 2058/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Universal Protein Supplements and H Young Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications;

| 2. | Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — salesforce.com, Inc. v EUIPO (SOCIAL.COM)

(Case T-134/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union word mark SOCIAL.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 287/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2015 (Case R 1752/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SOCIAL.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders salesforce.com, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders salesforce.com, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.4.2015.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/22

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union

(Case T-409/14) (1)

((Action for damages - Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 287/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, then J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the duration of the proceedings in Cases T-236/02, C-59/06 P and C-617/11 P.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18).

| 3. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/23

---

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

(Case T-252/16)

(2016/C 287/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 438

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2239/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin. |
| --- | --- |

—

The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/23

---

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

(Case T-253/16)

(2016/C 287/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Storage Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 446

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2240/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | The words composing the trade mark are not limited to a laudatory meaning as proposed by the Examiner. |
| --- | --- |

—

The words composing the trade mark are not limited to a laudatory meaning as proposed by the Examiner.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/24

---

Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission

(Case T-264/16)

(2016/C 287/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corp. (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

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 defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case and that there is no factual basis for its inclusion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case and that there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/25

---

Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Tarmac Trading v Commission

(Case T-267/16)

(2016/C 287/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarmac Trading Ltd. (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Anderson and P. Halford, Solicitors and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/288 of 27 March 2015 in Case SA.34775 (13/C) (ex 12/NN) — Aggregates levy — and, in particular, recitals (625), (626), (629) and (630) and Articles 5 and 7 of that Contested decision — insofar as:






  — | the contested decision defines the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid as the companies which produced shale and products consisting mainly of shale between 1 April 2002 and the date of the decision (‘shale producers’); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/288 of 27 March 2015 in Case SA.34775 (13/C) (ex 12/NN) — Aggregates levy — and, in particular, recitals (625), (626), (629) and (630) and Articles 5 and 7 of that Contested decision — insofar as:

—

the contested decision defines the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid as the companies which produced shale and products consisting mainly of shale between 1 April 2002 and the date of the decision (‘shale producers’); and

| — | the contested decision specifies the amount of aid to be recovered from the shale producers alone, requires recovery from them of the full amount of the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) to which the unlawful exemptions applied and fails to require the UK Government to reduce the amount to be recovered to the extent that the shale producers passed on the benefit of those exemptions to their customers; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decision specifies the amount of aid to be recovered from the shale producers alone, requires recovery from them of the full amount of the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) to which the unlawful exemptions applied and fails to require the UK Government to reduce the amount to be recovered to the extent that the shale producers passed on the benefit of those exemptions to their customers; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and/or a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the beneficiaries and the quantification of amount of aid failing to be recovered.
  According to the Applicant, insofar as the contested decision identifies the shale producers as the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid and does not require the United Kingdom to reduce the amount to be recovered from them to the extent that they passed on the benefit of the shale exemption to their customers, the Commission has made an error of law and/or committed a manifest error of assessment.






  — | The Applicant puts forward that the case-law of the General Court in Case T-308/00 RENV, Salzgitter/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2013:30), that has established that recovery must be limited to the financial advantages actually arising from the placing of the aid at the disposal of the beneficiary, and be proportionate to them. Moreover, so the Applicant states, Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), establish that, in the case of an aid consisting of a reduction of an indirect tax levied on the consumption of a particular good or service and intended to be passed on by an undertaking to its customers, and where the economic advantage arising from the application of the reduced tax could also have been passed on to its customers, the amount of aid falling to be recovered from the undertaking is only the advantage actually obtained and retained by the undertaking. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and/or a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the beneficiaries and the quantification of amount of aid failing to be recovered.

According to the Applicant, insofar as the contested decision identifies the shale producers as the sole beneficiaries of the unlawful aid and does not require the United Kingdom to reduce the amount to be recovered from them to the extent that they passed on the benefit of the shale exemption to their customers, the Commission has made an error of law and/or committed a manifest error of assessment.

—

The Applicant puts forward that the case-law of the General Court in Case T-308/00 RENV, Salzgitter/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2013:30), that has established that recovery must be limited to the financial advantages actually arising from the placing of the aid at the disposal of the beneficiary, and be proportionate to them. Moreover, so the Applicant states, Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), establish that, in the case of an aid consisting of a reduction of an indirect tax levied on the consumption of a particular good or service and intended to be passed on by an undertaking to its customers, and where the economic advantage arising from the application of the reduced tax could also have been passed on to its customers, the amount of aid falling to be recovered from the undertaking is only the advantage actually obtained and retained by the undertaking.

| — | The Applicant further puts forward that the AGL is an indirect tax levied on the consumption of aggregates and intended (by the UK Government) to be passed on by the undertakings extracting and commercially exploiting the aggregates, to their customers. The economic advantage arising from the shale exemptions, so the Applicant claims, could have been –and indeed actually was- passed on by the shale producers (including the Applicant) in the form of lower prices for the sale. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant further puts forward that the AGL is an indirect tax levied on the consumption of aggregates and intended (by the UK Government) to be passed on by the undertakings extracting and commercially exploiting the aggregates, to their customers. The economic advantage arising from the shale exemptions, so the Applicant claims, could have been –and indeed actually was- passed on by the shale producers (including the Applicant) in the form of lower prices for the sale.

| — | The Applicant further puts forward that for the same reason, recovery of the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy could not ensure the re-establishment of the status quo ante and would be liable to create additional distortions of competition, since it could lead to the recovery of more from the shale producers (including the Applicant) that the advantage they actually enjoyed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant further puts forward that for the same reason, recovery of the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy could not ensure the re-establishment of the status quo ante and would be liable to create additional distortions of competition, since it could lead to the recovery of more from the shale producers (including the Applicant) that the advantage they actually enjoyed.

| — | Accordingly, so the Applicant states, following Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), the only aid falling to be recovered from the shale producers is the advantage actually obtained and retained by them. |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, so the Applicant states, following Cases T-473/12, Aer Lingus/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:78) and T-500/12, Ryanair/Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2015:73), the only aid falling to be recovered from the shale producers is the advantage actually obtained and retained by them.

| — | Finally, the Applicant puts forward that insofar as the contested decision requires the recovery from the shale producers of the full amount of the AGL from which they were exempted under the shale exemptions, without any reduction to take account of the benefit passed on by the shale producers to their customers, the Commission made an error of law, wrongly applied Article 108 TFUE and/or Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1) and/or made a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, the Applicant puts forward that insofar as the contested decision requires the recovery from the shale producers of the full amount of the AGL from which they were exempted under the shale exemptions, without any reduction to take account of the benefit passed on by the shale producers to their customers, the Commission made an error of law, wrongly applied Article 108 TFUE and/or Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1) and/or made a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the EU principle of proportionality.
  The Applicant puts forward that in breach of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999, recovering the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy from the Applicant in relation to the shale it exploited would be disproportionate to any financial advantage arising from the placing of the aid at its disposal. The Applicant passed on the entire benefit of the exemption from AGL to its customers and it would be impossible in practice for it to recover retroactively that unpaid AGL from its customers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the EU principle of proportionality.

The Applicant puts forward that in breach of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999, recovering the full amount of unpaid aggregates levy from the Applicant in relation to the shale it exploited would be disproportionate to any financial advantage arising from the placing of the aid at its disposal. The Applicant passed on the entire benefit of the exemption from AGL to its customers and it would be impossible in practice for it to recover retroactively that unpaid AGL from its customers.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/26

---

Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)

(Case T-305/16)

(2016/C 287/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Berger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primark Holdings (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LOVE TO LOUNGE’ — EU trade mark No 8 500 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 in Case R 489/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare invalid EU trade mark No 8 500 548; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare invalid EU trade mark No 8 500 548;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

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

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/27

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)

(Case T-308/16)

(2016/C 287/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ClaimsExcellence’ — Application No 13 847 462

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2358/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/28

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

(Case T-313/16)

(2016/C 287/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Grupo Riberebro Integral, SL (Alfaro, Spain) and Riberebro Integral, SA (Alfaro, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and A. Rincón García-Loygorri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay;

| — | in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings arise from the leniency application submitted by a specific company to the European Commission, in relation to that company’s participation in a cartel in the canned mushrooms sector. As the text of the decision itself states, that cartel sought to stabilise the mushroom market and stop the decline of prices.

The applicants do not dispute the facts or their legal characterisation, which they have already accepted in cooperating in the leniency procedure and in their reply to the statement of objections, in which they stated that they accepted the description and legal assessment of the facts. In the present proceedings, it is the assessment and proportionality of the fine imposed which are contested.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant.

—

It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principle of proportionality.






  — | It is submitted in that regard that there is a failure, in the contested decision, to take into account the applicants’ limited portfolio of products. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

—

It is submitted in that regard that there is a failure, in the contested decision, to take into account the applicants’ limited portfolio of products.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/29

---

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

(Case T-315/16)

(2016/C 287/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Butterfly’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 221/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the contested decision to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and EU trade mark application No 011757549 is rejected;

| — | order the other party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/30

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)

(Case T-316/16)

(2016/C 287/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-554S’ — Application for registration No 12 780 581

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1575/2015-2

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.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/31

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

(Case T-317/16)

(2016/C 287/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-888TII RU’– Application for registration No 12 781 225

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1566/2015-2

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.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/31

---

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

(Case T-318/16)

(2016/C 287/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-444S’– Application for registration No 12 780 061

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1573/2015-2

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.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/32

---

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-326/16)

(2016/C 287/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V. (Rathenow, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Tafel’ — EU trade mark No 8 985 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2016 in Case R 248/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/33

---

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

(Case T-327/16)

(2016/C 287/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTICO CASALE’ — EU trade mark No 10 531 432

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 in Case R 1337/2015-2

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.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/34

---

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T-341/16)

(2016/C 287/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, by which he alleges an infringement of the rights of parliamentary representatives stemming from the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU and obligations to provide information.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council

(Case F-40/15) (1)

((Civil service - Assessment - Staff report - Interest in bringing proceedings - Downgrading of analytical assessments - Referral to the Reports Committee - Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff))

(2016/C 287/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: initially by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 27.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 28 June 2016 — Kotula v Commission

(Case F-118/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials recommended for promotion by the Directors-General and Heads of Department - Omission of the applicant’s name - Inter-institutional transfer - Taking into account staff reports drawn up by the previous institution - Possibility of contesting the list of officials recommended for promotion before the Joint Promotions Committee - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion))

(2016/C 287/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2014 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28. 9. 2015, p. 57.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/36

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council

(Case F-142/11 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Officials - Upgrade - Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 287/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he had been successful in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD 9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Simpson shall bear his own costs in Cases F-142/11, T-130/14 P and F-142/11 RENV respectively and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-142/11. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Simpson shall bear his own costs in Cases F-142/11, T-130/14 P and F-142/11 RENV respectively and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-142/11.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs in Cases T-130/14 P and F 142/11 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs in Cases T-130/14 P and F 142/11 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 26 (initial case).

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA

(Case F-22/14) (1)

(2016/C 287/45)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21/7/2014, p. 34.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

(Case F-115/14) (1)

(2016/C 287/46)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 55.

---

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

(Case F-57/15) (1)

(2016/C 287/47)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 46.

---