# Official Journal C 382/13 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 382 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6013 November 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 382

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6013 November 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 382/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 382/02 | Assignment of Judges to Chambers | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 382/01

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

General Court

2017/C 382/02

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 382/03 | Case C-591/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decision 2011/678/EU — State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Non-performance) | 5 |
| 2017/C 382/04 | Case C-320/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 4(1) and (3) — Secondary or equivalent treatment) | 6 |
| 2017/C 382/05 | Case C-329/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of aid granted by a Member State or through State resources — Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat) | 6 |
| 2017/C 382/06 | Case C-552/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Motor vehicles — Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State — Registration tax — Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration — Conditions for refunding tax — Proportionality) | 7 |
| 2017/C 382/07 | Case C-569/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months) | 8 |
| 2017/C 382/08 | Case C-570/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence) | 8 |
| 2017/C 382/09 | Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation — Rights of the defence — Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself — Fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement — Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) — Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed — Equal treatment) | 9 |
| 2017/C 382/10 | Case C-589/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission (Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity — Application for registration — Refusal by the Commission — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 122 TFEU — Article 136 TFEU — Infringement) | 10 |
| 2017/C 382/11 | Case C-628/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Scope — Tax legislation of a Member State — Corporation tax — Tax credit — Pension funds — Refusal to grant the tax credit to shareholders not subject to tax on investment income for dividends arising from foreign income — Interpretation of the judgment of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (C-446/04, EU:C:2006:774) — Tax credit unlawfully withheld — Remedies) | 10 |
| 2017/C 382/12 | Case C-646/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Trust — Trustees — Other legal persons — Meaning — Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State — Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer — Tax payable immediately — Justification — Proportionality) | 11 |
| 2017/C 382/13 | Case C-648/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany (Article 273 TFEU — Dispute between Member States submitted to the Court under a special agreement between the parties — Taxation — Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Taxation of interest from financial instruments — Definition of debt-claims with participation in profits) | 12 |
| 2017/C 382/14 | Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element darjeeling or darjeeling collection de lingerie — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication Darjeeling — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5)) | 13 |
| 2017/C 382/15 | Case C-18/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application — Directive 2013/33/EU — First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) — Detention — Verification of identity or nationality — Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Restriction — Proportionality) | 13 |
| 2017/C 382/16 | Case C-56/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) — EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark — Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin Porto and Port under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law — Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin — Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Concepts of use and evocation of a protected designation of origin) | 14 |
| 2017/C 382/17 | Case C-60/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 28 — Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible — Deadline for carrying out the transfer — Maximum period of detention — Calculation — Request to take charge accepted before the detention — Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision) | 15 |
| 2017/C 382/18 | Case C-111/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Genetically modified food and feed — Emergency measures — National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 — Maintenance or renewal of the measure — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 34 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Articles 53 and 54 — Conditions of application — Precautionary principle) | 16 |
| 2017/C 382/19 | Case C-132/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 — Deduction of input tax — Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party — Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person — Service supplied free of charge to the third party — Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs — Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person) | 17 |
| 2017/C 382/20 | Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 19(2)(a) — Concept of place in which the employee habitually carries out his work — Airline sector — Airline crew — Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 — Concept of home base) | 17 |
| 2017/C 382/21 | Case C-177/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of unfair price — Fees collected by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with rates charged in other Member States — Choice of reference Member States — Assessment criteria for prices — Calculation of the fine) | 18 |
| 2017/C 382/22 | Case C-183/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA (Appeal — Agriculture — Poultrymeat — Frozen chickens — Export refunds — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Legality — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Articles 162 and 164 — Subject matter and nature of the refunds — Criteria for fixing the amount — Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation — Misuse of powers — Comitology — Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 — Article 3(3) — Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets — Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee — Compliance with time limits — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Annulment with maintenance of the effects) | 19 |
| 2017/C 382/23 | Case C-184/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 2008/115/EC — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Residence of a national of a Member State within the territory of another Member State despite a prohibition on entering that State — Lawfulness of a decision to withdraw a registration certificate and a further expulsion decision — Possibility to rely, exceptionally, on the unlawfulness of an earlier decision — Translation obligation) | 20 |
| 2017/C 382/24 | Case C-186/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk born entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract — Time at which the imbalance must be assessed — Scope of the concept of terms drafted in plain intelligible language — Level of information to be procured by the bank) | 21 |
| 2017/C 382/25 | Joined Cases C-215/16, C-216/16, C-220/16 and C-221/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (requests for preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16) v Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Electricity generated by wind power — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 — Aid scheme — Subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) — Administrative charges — Directive 2008/118/EC — General arrangements for excise duty — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes for specific purposes — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 4 — Minimum rate of taxation on energy — Levy imposed on turbines designed to produce electricity) | 22 |
| 2017/C 382/26 | Case C-223/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Loss by those entities of the capacities required — National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor) | 23 |
| 2017/C 382/27 | Case C-300/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Concept of aid — Concept of economic advantage — Private creditor test — Conditions of applicability — Application — Investigation obligations on the European Commission) | 24 |
| 2017/C 382/28 | Case C-350/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Common fisheries policy — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for compensation — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law — Whether possible to rely on that breach — Principle of non-discrimination — Res judicata) | 24 |
| 2017/C 382/29 | Case C-503/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC — Theft of a vehicle — Motor vehicle accident — Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian — Civil liability — Compensation — Compulsory insurance cover — Exclusion clauses — National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers — Compatibility with those directives — Concept of third parties who have been victims) | 25 |
| 2017/C 382/30 | Case C-158/17 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 26 |
| 2017/C 382/31 | Case C-188/17 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union | 26 |
| 2017/C 382/32 | Case C-245/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2017 — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha | 26 |
| 2017/C 382/33 | Case C-321/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 — v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres) OJ (
  *1
  ) | 27 |
| 2017/C 382/34 | Case C-437/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH | 28 |
| 2017/C 382/35 | Case C-448/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 July 2017 — EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o. v Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová | 28 |
| 2017/C 382/36 | Case C-469/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2017 — Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany | 30 |
| 2017/C 382/37 | Case C-473/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado | 31 |
| 2017/C 382/38 | Case C-474/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Sociedad de Transportes SA | 31 |
| 2017/C 382/39 | Case C-480/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte | 32 |
| 2017/C 382/40 | Case C-513/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner | 33 |
| 2017/C 382/41 | Case C-521/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 1 September 2017 — c.v. SNB-REACT u. a. v Deepak Mehta | 34 |
| 2017/C 382/42 | Case C-564/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium | 34 |
| 2017/C 382/43 | Case C-574/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission | 35 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 382/44 | Case T-138/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission (State aid — Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform — Decision finding no State aid — Non-economic services of general interest) | 37 |
| 2017/C 382/45 | Case T-411/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL — Earlier EU word mark GAP — Cross-appeal — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)) | 38 |
| 2017/C 382/46 | Case T-695/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — BMB v EUIPO — Ferrero (Container for sweets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a container for sweets — Earlier international three-dimensional mark — Shape of a standard container which can be filled with sweets — Likelihood of confusion — Application of national law — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 62 and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002) | 39 |
| 2017/C 382/47 | Case T-765/15: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — BelTechExport v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Suspension of measures — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Error of assessment) | 39 |
| 2017/C 382/48 | Case T-206/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 40 |
| 2017/C 382/49 | Case T-453/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition — Other earlier sign 520 — Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based) | 41 |
| 2017/C 382/50 | Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA (Civil Service — Appointment — Position of executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Selection and appointment procedure — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Impartiality — Assessment criteria — Appointment of another candidate — Res judicata) | 42 |
| 2017/C 382/51 | Case T-562/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 27/09 and F 104/12) | 42 |
| 2017/C 382/52 | Case T-563/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 44/09 and F 105/12) | 43 |
| 2017/C 382/53 | Case T-717/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 44 |
| 2017/C 382/54 | Case T-755/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After) (European Union trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 44 |
| 2017/C 382/55 | Case T-779/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 45 |
| 2017/C 382/56 | Case T-153/17: Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council | 45 |
| 2017/C 382/57 | Case T-521/17: Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Hernández Díaz v SRB | 46 |
| 2017/C 382/58 | Case T-554/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB | 47 |
| 2017/C 382/59 | Case T-575/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Algebris (UK) and Others v SRB | 47 |
| 2017/C 382/60 | Case T-600/17: Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB | 48 |
| 2017/C 382/61 | Case T-609/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission | 49 |
| 2017/C 382/62 | Case T-615/17: Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission | 50 |
| 2017/C 382/63 | Case T-631/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB | 50 |
| 2017/C 382/64 | Case T-632/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission | 51 |
| 2017/C 382/65 | Case T-633/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission | 52 |
| 2017/C 382/66 | Case T-634/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission | 53 |
| 2017/C 382/67 | Case T-636/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 – PlasticsEurope v ECHA | 54 |
| 2017/C 382/68 | Case T-637/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB | 55 |
| 2017/C 382/69 | Case T-638/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB | 56 |
| 2017/C 382/70 | Case T-641/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB | 57 |
| 2017/C 382/71 | Case T-652/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany) | 57 |
| 2017/C 382/72 | Case T-668/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico) | 58 |
| 2017/C 382/73 | Case T-673/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission | 59 |
| 2017/C 382/74 | Case T-674/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Le Port de Bruxelles et Région Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 382/75 | Case T-393/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y) | 61 |
| 2017/C 382/76 | Case T-394/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY) | 61 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 382/03

Case C-591/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decision 2011/678/EU — State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Non-performance)

5

2017/C 382/04

Case C-320/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 4(1) and (3) — Secondary or equivalent treatment)

6

2017/C 382/05

Case C-329/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of aid granted by a Member State or through State resources — Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat)

6

2017/C 382/06

Case C-552/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Motor vehicles — Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State — Registration tax — Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration — Conditions for refunding tax — Proportionality)

7

2017/C 382/07

Case C-569/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months)

8

2017/C 382/08

Case C-570/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence)

8

2017/C 382/09

Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation — Rights of the defence — Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself — Fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement — Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) — Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed — Equal treatment)

9

2017/C 382/10

Case C-589/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission (Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity — Application for registration — Refusal by the Commission — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 122 TFEU — Article 136 TFEU — Infringement)

10

2017/C 382/11

Case C-628/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Scope — Tax legislation of a Member State — Corporation tax — Tax credit — Pension funds — Refusal to grant the tax credit to shareholders not subject to tax on investment income for dividends arising from foreign income — Interpretation of the judgment of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (C-446/04, EU:C:2006:774) — Tax credit unlawfully withheld — Remedies)

10

2017/C 382/12

Case C-646/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Trust — Trustees — Other legal persons — Meaning — Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State — Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer — Tax payable immediately — Justification — Proportionality)

11

2017/C 382/13

Case C-648/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany (Article 273 TFEU — Dispute between Member States submitted to the Court under a special agreement between the parties — Taxation — Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Taxation of interest from financial instruments — Definition of debt-claims with participation in profits)

12

2017/C 382/14

Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element darjeeling or darjeeling collection de lingerie — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication Darjeeling — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5))

13

2017/C 382/15

Case C-18/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application — Directive 2013/33/EU — First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) — Detention — Verification of identity or nationality — Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Restriction — Proportionality)

13

2017/C 382/16

Case C-56/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) — EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark — Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin Porto and Port under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law — Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin — Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Concepts of use and evocation of a protected designation of origin)

14

2017/C 382/17

Case C-60/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 28 — Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible — Deadline for carrying out the transfer — Maximum period of detention — Calculation — Request to take charge accepted before the detention — Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision)

15

2017/C 382/18

Case C-111/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Genetically modified food and feed — Emergency measures — National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 — Maintenance or renewal of the measure — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 34 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Articles 53 and 54 — Conditions of application — Precautionary principle)

16

2017/C 382/19

Case C-132/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 — Deduction of input tax — Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party — Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person — Service supplied free of charge to the third party — Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs — Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person)

17

2017/C 382/20

Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 19(2)(a) — Concept of place in which the employee habitually carries out his work — Airline sector — Airline crew — Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 — Concept of home base)

17

2017/C 382/21

Case C-177/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of unfair price — Fees collected by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with rates charged in other Member States — Choice of reference Member States — Assessment criteria for prices — Calculation of the fine)

18

2017/C 382/22

Case C-183/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA (Appeal — Agriculture — Poultrymeat — Frozen chickens — Export refunds — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Legality — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Articles 162 and 164 — Subject matter and nature of the refunds — Criteria for fixing the amount — Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation — Misuse of powers — Comitology — Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 — Article 3(3) — Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets — Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee — Compliance with time limits — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Annulment with maintenance of the effects)

19

2017/C 382/23

Case C-184/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 2008/115/EC — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Residence of a national of a Member State within the territory of another Member State despite a prohibition on entering that State — Lawfulness of a decision to withdraw a registration certificate and a further expulsion decision — Possibility to rely, exceptionally, on the unlawfulness of an earlier decision — Translation obligation)

20

2017/C 382/24

Case C-186/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk born entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract — Time at which the imbalance must be assessed — Scope of the concept of terms drafted in plain intelligible language — Level of information to be procured by the bank)

21

2017/C 382/25

Joined Cases C-215/16, C-216/16, C-220/16 and C-221/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (requests for preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16) v Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Electricity generated by wind power — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 — Aid scheme — Subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) — Administrative charges — Directive 2008/118/EC — General arrangements for excise duty — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes for specific purposes — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 4 — Minimum rate of taxation on energy — Levy imposed on turbines designed to produce electricity)

22

2017/C 382/26

Case C-223/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Loss by those entities of the capacities required — National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor)

23

2017/C 382/27

Case C-300/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Concept of aid — Concept of economic advantage — Private creditor test — Conditions of applicability — Application — Investigation obligations on the European Commission)

24

2017/C 382/28

Case C-350/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Common fisheries policy — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for compensation — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law — Whether possible to rely on that breach — Principle of non-discrimination — Res judicata)

24

2017/C 382/29

Case C-503/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC — Theft of a vehicle — Motor vehicle accident — Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian — Civil liability — Compensation — Compulsory insurance cover — Exclusion clauses — National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers — Compatibility with those directives — Concept of third parties who have been victims)

25

2017/C 382/30

Case C-158/17 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

26

2017/C 382/31

Case C-188/17 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union

Todorov

Court of Justice of the European Union

26

2017/C 382/32

Case C-245/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2017 — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

26

2017/C 382/33

Case C-321/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 — v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres) OJ (
  *1
  )

*1

27

2017/C 382/34

Case C-437/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

28

2017/C 382/35

Case C-448/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 July 2017 — EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o. v Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová

28

2017/C 382/36

Case C-469/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2017 — Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

30

2017/C 382/37

Case C-473/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado

31

2017/C 382/38

Case C-474/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Sociedad de Transportes SA

31

2017/C 382/39

Case C-480/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

32

2017/C 382/40

Case C-513/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner

33

2017/C 382/41

Case C-521/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 1 September 2017 — c.v. SNB-REACT u. a. v Deepak Mehta

34

2017/C 382/42

Case C-564/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

34

2017/C 382/43

Case C-574/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission

35

General Court

2017/C 382/44

Case T-138/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission (State aid — Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform — Decision finding no State aid — Non-economic services of general interest)

37

2017/C 382/45

Case T-411/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL — Earlier EU word mark GAP — Cross-appeal — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

38

2017/C 382/46

Case T-695/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — BMB v EUIPO — Ferrero (Container for sweets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a container for sweets — Earlier international three-dimensional mark — Shape of a standard container which can be filled with sweets — Likelihood of confusion — Application of national law — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 62 and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

39

2017/C 382/47

Case T-765/15: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — BelTechExport v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Suspension of measures — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Error of assessment)

39

2017/C 382/48

Case T-206/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

40

2017/C 382/49

Case T-453/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition — Other earlier sign 520 — Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based)

41

2017/C 382/50

Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA (Civil Service — Appointment — Position of executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Selection and appointment procedure — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Impartiality — Assessment criteria — Appointment of another candidate — Res judicata)

42

2017/C 382/51

Case T-562/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 27/09 and F 104/12)

42

2017/C 382/52

Case T-563/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 44/09 and F 105/12)

43

2017/C 382/53

Case T-717/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

44

2017/C 382/54

Case T-755/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After) (European Union trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

44

2017/C 382/55

Case T-779/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

45

2017/C 382/56

Case T-153/17: Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council

45

2017/C 382/57

Case T-521/17: Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Hernández Díaz v SRB

46

2017/C 382/58

Case T-554/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB

47

2017/C 382/59

Case T-575/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Algebris (UK) and Others v SRB

47

2017/C 382/60

Case T-600/17: Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB

48

2017/C 382/61

Case T-609/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission

49

2017/C 382/62

Case T-615/17: Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission

50

2017/C 382/63

Case T-631/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB

50

2017/C 382/64

Case T-632/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission

51

2017/C 382/65

Case T-633/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission

52

2017/C 382/66

Case T-634/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission

53

2017/C 382/67

Case T-636/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 – PlasticsEurope v ECHA

54

2017/C 382/68

Case T-637/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB

55

2017/C 382/69

Case T-638/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB

56

2017/C 382/70

Case T-641/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB

57

2017/C 382/71

Case T-652/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

57

2017/C 382/72

Case T-668/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

58

2017/C 382/73

Case T-673/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

59

2017/C 382/74

Case T-674/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Le Port de Bruxelles et Région Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

60

2017/C 382/75

Case T-393/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)

61

2017/C 382/76

Case T-394/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)

61

---

| | |
| --- | --- |

---

| EN | For reasons of protection of personal data, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore, therefore a new authentic version has been published. |
| --- | --- |

EN

For reasons of protection of personal data, some information contained in this issue cannot be disclosed anymore, therefore a new authentic version has been published.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/1

---

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

(2017/C 382/01)

Last publication

OJ C 374, 6.11.2017

Past publications

OJ C 369, 30.10.2017

OJ C 357, 23.10.2017

OJ C 347, 16.10.2017

OJ C 338, 9.10.2017

OJ C 330, 2.10.2017

OJ C 318, 25.9.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

General Court

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/2

---

Assignment of Judges to Chambers

(2017/C 382/02)

On 4 October 2017, the plenary meeting of the General Court decided, following the entry into office of Judge De Baere, on a proposal of the President made in accordance with Article 13(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to amend the decision on the assignment of Judges to Chambers of 21 September 2016 (1), as amended on 8 June 2017 (2), and to assign the Judges to Chambers for the period from 4 October 2017 to 31 August 2019 as follows:

First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Valančius, Mr Nihoul, Mr Svenningsen and Mr Öberg, Judges.

First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;

| (a) | Mr Nihoul and Mr Svenningsen, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Nihoul and Mr Svenningsen, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Valančius and Mr Öberg, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Valančius and Mr Öberg, Judges.

Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber, Mr Buttigieg, Mr Schalin, Mr Berke and Ms Costeira, Judges.

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Prek, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Schalin and Ms Costeira, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Schalin and Ms Costeira, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Buttigieg and Mr Berke, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Buttigieg and Mr Berke, Judges.

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber, Mr Kreuschitz, Mr Forrester, Ms Półtorak and Mr Perillo, Judges.

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Frimodt Nielsen, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Forrester and Mr Perillo, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Forrester and Mr Perillo, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Półtorak, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Kreuschitz and Ms Półtorak, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber, Mr Schwarcz, Mr Iliopoulos, Mr Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín and Ms Reine, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Kanninen, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Ms Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Ms Schwarcz and Mr Iliopoulos, Judges;

| (b) | Ms Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín and Ms Reine, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín and Ms Reine, Judges.

Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber, Ms Labucka, Mr Dittrich, Mr Ulloa Rubio and Mr Xuereb, Judges.

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gratsias, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Dittrich and Mr Xuereb, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Dittrich and Mr Xuereb, Judges;

| (b) | Ms Labucka and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Labucka and Mr Ulloa Rubio, Judges.

Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Spielmann, Mr Csehi and Ms Spineau-Matei, Judges.

Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Berardis, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Papasavvas and Ms Spineau-Matei, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Papasavvas and Ms Spineau-Matei, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Spielmann and Mr Csehi, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Spielmann and Mr Csehi, Judges.

Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber, Ms Kancheva, Mr Bieliūnas, Ms Marcoulli and Mr Kornezov, Judges.

Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Ms Tomljenović, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Bieliūnas and Mr Kornezov, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Bieliūnas and Mr Kornezov, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Bieliūnas and Ms Marcoulli, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Bieliūnas and Ms Marcoulli, Judges;

| (c) | Ms Marcoulli and Mr Kornezov, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Ms Marcoulli and Mr Kornezov, Judges.

Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber, Ms Kancheva, Mr Barents, Mr Passer and Mr De Baere, Judges.

Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Collins, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Barents and Mr Passer, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Barents and Mr Passer, Judges;

| (b) | Ms Kancheva and Mr De Baere, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Kancheva and Mr De Baere, Judges.

Ninth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber, Mr Madise, Mr da Silva Passos, Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Mac Eochiadh, Judges.

Ninth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Gervasoni, President of the Chamber

| (a) | Mr Madise and Mr da Silva Passos, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Madise and Mr da Silva Passos, Judges;

| (b) | Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Mac Eochiadh, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Kowalik-Bańczyk and Mr Mac Eochiadh, Judges.

The Seventh Chamber composed of four Judges shall be enlarged by the addition of a fifth Judge from the Eighth Chamber. The fifth Judge, who shall not be the President of the Chamber, shall be designated for a year in accordance with the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 C 392, p. 2.

(2)  OJ 2017 C 213, p. 2.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-591/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Decision 2011/678/EU - State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals - Aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Non-performance))

(2017/C 382/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, B. Stromsky, S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck and J. C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and L. Van den Hende and J. Charles, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)), and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)), and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-320/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 4(1) and (3) - Secondary or equivalent treatment))

(2017/C 382/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Brodie and J. Kraehling, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not having ensured secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from the agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista, whose population equivalent is between 2 000 and 10 000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not having ensured secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from the agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista, whose population equivalent is between 2 000 and 10 000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

(Case C-329/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat))

(2017/C 382/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ENEA S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration with the production of heat does not constitute intervention by the State or through State resources.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-552/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Motor vehicles - Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State - Registration tax - Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration - Conditions for refunding tax - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, M. Collins SC, and S. Kingston and C. Daly, Barristers-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing the obligation to pay in advance the full amount of the vehicle registration tax applicable in the event of permanent registration, whatever the actual limited duration of the proposed use in Ireland of a vehicle imported there, and although the temporary duration of the lease or rental has been determined precisely and is known in advance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing the obligation to pay in advance the full amount of the vehicle registration tax applicable in the event of permanent registration, whatever the actual limited duration of the proposed use in Ireland of a vehicle imported there, and although the temporary duration of the lease or rental has been determined precisely and is known in advance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to provide for the payment of interest when vehicle registration tax is refunded and by deducting the sum of EUR 500 by way of an administration charge from the amount of registration tax to be refunded, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to provide for the payment of interest when vehicle registration tax is refunded and by deducting the sum of EUR 500 by way of an administration charge from the amount of registration tax to be refunded, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-569/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months))

(2017/C 382/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing and employed in the territory of one Member State who, for a period of three months, takes unpaid leave and is employed in the territory of another Member State, is to be regarded as normally employed in the territory of two Member States within the meaning of that provision, provided that, during that period of leave, he is considered as normally employed under the social security legislation of the first Member State and that the activity carried out on the territory of the second Member State is habitual and significant in nature, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

(Case C-570/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence))

(2017/C 382/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who is employed by an employer established in the territory of one Member State and who resides in another Member State where he carried out, over the course of the past year, a part of his employment activity amounting to 6,5 % of his hours worked without such an arrangement having been agreed with his employer in advance, is not to be considered to be normally employed in the territory of two Member States, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation - Rights of the defence - Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself - Fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement - Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) - Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 382/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: LG Electronics Inc. (represented by: G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, advocaten), Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J.K. de Pree and S. Molin, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission

(Case C-589/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity - Application for registration - Refusal by the Commission - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 122 TFEU - Article 136 TFEU - Infringement))

(2017/C 382/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros, and F. Moyse, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-628/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Scope - Tax legislation of a Member State - Corporation tax - Tax credit - Pension funds - Refusal to grant the tax credit to shareholders not subject to tax on investment income for dividends arising from foreign income - Interpretation of the judgment of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (C-446/04, EU:C:2006:774) - Tax credit unlawfully withheld - Remedies))

(2017/C 382/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rights on a shareholder receiving dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rights on a shareholder receiving dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’.

| 2. | EU law requires that the domestic law of a Member State provide remedies to shareholders who, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, have received dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ but have not, however, obtained a tax credit in respect of those dividends, in order to enable those shareholders to enforce the rights that Article 63 TFEU confers on them. In that regard, the national court with jurisdiction must ensure that shareholders not subject to income tax in respect of dividends who have received dividends that have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, such as the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, have a remedy which, first, ensures payment of such a tax credit — of which the beneficiaries have been unduly deprived — under rules which are not less favourable than those relating to an action seeking payment of a tax credit, or of a comparable tax advantage, in a situation where the tax authorities have unduly deprived the beneficiaries of that tax credit or of that tax advantage on a distribution of dividends which have their origin in the dividends received from a UK-resident company and, second, allows the protection of the rights conferred on such shareholders by Article 63 TFEU to be guaranteed in an effective manner. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law requires that the domestic law of a Member State provide remedies to shareholders who, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, have received dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ but have not, however, obtained a tax credit in respect of those dividends, in order to enable those shareholders to enforce the rights that Article 63 TFEU confers on them. In that regard, the national court with jurisdiction must ensure that shareholders not subject to income tax in respect of dividends who have received dividends that have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, such as the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, have a remedy which, first, ensures payment of such a tax credit — of which the beneficiaries have been unduly deprived — under rules which are not less favourable than those relating to an action seeking payment of a tax credit, or of a comparable tax advantage, in a situation where the tax authorities have unduly deprived the beneficiaries of that tax credit or of that tax advantage on a distribution of dividends which have their origin in the dividends received from a UK-resident company and, second, allows the protection of the rights conferred on such shareholders by Article 63 TFEU to be guaranteed in an effective manner.

| 3. | Neither the fact that the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme are not subject to income tax in respect of the dividends they receive, the fact that the infringement of EU law at issue is not, in the referring court’s view, sufficiently serious so as to give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Member State concerned in favour of the company distributing dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, under the principles established in the judgment of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame (C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79) nor the fact that a UK-resident company has distributed an increased amount of dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ in order to make up for the fact that the recipient shareholder was not entitled to a tax credit are such as to alter the answers given to the other questions asked by the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Neither the fact that the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme are not subject to income tax in respect of the dividends they receive, the fact that the infringement of EU law at issue is not, in the referring court’s view, sufficiently serious so as to give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Member State concerned in favour of the company distributing dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, under the principles established in the judgment of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame (C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79) nor the fact that a UK-resident company has distributed an increased amount of dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ in order to make up for the fact that the recipient shareholder was not entitled to a tax credit are such as to alter the answers given to the other questions asked by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-646/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Trust - Trustees - Other legal persons - Meaning - Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State - Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer - Tax payable immediately - Justification - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to freedom of establishment preclude, in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, where the trustees, under national law, are treated as a single and continuing body of persons, distinct from the persons who may from time to time be the trustees, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the taxation of unrealised gains in value of assets held in trust when the majority of the trustees transfer their residence to another Member State, but fails to permit payment of the tax payable to be deferred.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-648/15) (1)

((Article 273 TFEU - Dispute between Member States submitted to the Court under a special agreement between the parties - Taxation - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of interest from financial instruments - Definition of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’))

(2017/C 382/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, F. Koppensteiner and H. Jirousek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’ referred to in Article 11(2) of the Abkommen zwischen der Republik Österreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen (Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital) of 24 August 2000 must be interpreted as excluding certificates such as those at issue in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’ referred to in Article 11(2) of the Abkommen zwischen der Republik Österreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen (Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital) of 24 August 2000 must be interpreted as excluding certificates such as those at issue in the present case.

| 2. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie

(Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ - Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks - Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ - Article 66(2) - Essential function - Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Definition - Similarity of goods and services - Criteria for assessment - Article 8(5)))

(2017/C 382/14)

Language of the cases: English

Parties

Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M. Maier and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Delta Lingerie (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders The Tea Board to pay the costs of the main appeals; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Tea Board to pay the costs of the main appeals;

| 3. | Orders Delta Lingerie to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Delta Lingerie to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-18/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application - Directive 2013/33/EU - First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) - Detention - Verification of identity or nationality - Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Restriction - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd

(Case C-56/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) - EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark - Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin ‘Porto’ and ‘Port’ under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law - Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin - Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘evocation’ of a protected designation of origin))

(2017/C 382/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado and O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by B. Eggers, I. Galindo Martín, J. Samnadda and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, advogado), Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, avocate)

Intervener in support of Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and A. Alves, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015, Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (T-659/14, EU:T:2015:863); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015, Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (T-659/14, EU:T:2015:863);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP in Case T-659/14 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP in Case T-659/14 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4);

| 3. | Orders Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd in both sets of judicial proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd in both sets of judicial proceedings;

| 4. | Orders the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket

(Case C-60/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 28 - Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible - Deadline for carrying out the transfer - Maximum period of detention - Calculation - Request to take charge accepted before the detention - Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision))

(2017/C 382/17)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammad Khir Amayry

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the detention of an applicant for international protection begins after the requested Member State has accepted the take charge request, that detention may be maintained for no longer than two months, provided, first, that the duration of the detention does not go beyond the period of time which is necessary for the purposes of that transfer procedure, assessed by taking account of the specific requirements of that procedure in each specific case and, second, that, where applicable, that duration is not to be longer than six weeks from the date when the appeal or review ceases to have suspensive effect; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the detention of an applicant for international protection begins after the requested Member State has accepted the take charge request, that detention may be maintained for no longer than two months, provided, first, that the duration of the detention does not go beyond the period of time which is necessary for the purposes of that transfer procedure, assessed by taking account of the specific requirements of that procedure in each specific case and, second, that, where applicable, that duration is not to be longer than six weeks from the date when the appeal or review ceases to have suspensive effect; and

| — | it does preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in such a situation, the detention to be maintained for 3 or 12 months during which the transfer could be reasonably carried out. |
| --- | --- |

—

it does preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in such a situation, the detention to be maintained for 3 or 12 months during which the transfer could be reasonably carried out.

| 2. | Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the number of days during which the person concerned was already detained after a Member State has accepted the take charge or take back request need not be deducted from the six week period established by that provision, from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the number of days during which the person concerned was already detained after a Member State has accepted the take charge or take back request need not be deducted from the six week period established by that provision, from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effect.

| 3. | Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the six week period beginning from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effective, established by that provision, also applies when the suspension of the execution of the transfer decision was not specifically requested by the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the six week period beginning from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effective, established by that provision, also applies when the suspension of the execution of the transfer decision was not specifically requested by the person concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga

(Case C-111/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Genetically modified food and feed - Emergency measures - National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 - Maintenance or renewal of the measure - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 34 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Articles 53 and 54 - Conditions of application - Precautionary principle))

(2017/C 382/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Udine

Parties in the criminal proceedings comprising the main proceedings

Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, read in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002 when a Member State officially informs the Commission, in accordance with Article 54(1) of that regulation, of the need to take such measures, as long as it is not evident that products authorised by Regulation No 1829/2003 or in accordance with that regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, read in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002 when a Member State officially informs the Commission, in accordance with Article 54(1) of that regulation, of the need to take such measures, as long as it is not evident that products authorised by Regulation No 1829/2003 or in accordance with that regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.

| 2. | Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, after officially informing the European Commission of the need to resort to emergency measures, and where the Commission has not acted in accordance with Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, first, adopt such measures at the national level and, second, maintain or renew such measures, so long as the Commission has not adopted, in accordance with Article 54(2) of that regulation, a decision requiring their extension, amendment or abrogation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, after officially informing the European Commission of the need to resort to emergency measures, and where the Commission has not acted in accordance with Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, first, adopt such measures at the national level and, second, maintain or renew such measures, so long as the Commission has not adopted, in accordance with Article 54(2) of that regulation, a decision requiring their extension, amendment or abrogation.

| 3. | Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with the precautionary principle as set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not give Member States the option of adopting, in accordance with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, interim emergency measures solely on the basis of that principle, without the conditions set out in Article 34 of Directive No 1829/2003 being satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with the precautionary principle as set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not give Member States the option of adopting, in accordance with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, interim emergency measures solely on the basis of that principle, without the conditions set out in Article 34 of Directive No 1829/2003 being satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

(Case C-132/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 - Deduction of input tax - Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party - Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person - Service supplied free of charge to the third party - Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs - Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person))

(2017/C 382/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Defendant:‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

(Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 19(2)(a) - Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Airline sector - Airline crew - Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 - Concept of ‘home base’))

(2017/C 382/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar (C-169/16)

Defendants: Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, assigned to or employed by an airline, and in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome

(Case C-177/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Concept of ‘unfair price’ - Fees collected by a copyright management organisation - Comparison with rates charged in other Member States - Choice of reference Member States - Assessment criteria for prices - Calculation of the fine))

(2017/C 382/21)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Trade between Member States is capable of being affected by the level of rates set by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders, with the result that Article 102 TFEU may be applicable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Trade between Member States is capable of being affected by the level of rates set by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders, with the result that Article 102 TFEU may be applicable.

| 2. | For the purposes of examining whether a copyright management organisation applies unfair prices within the meaning of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, it is appropriate to compare its rates with those applicable in neighbouring Member States as well as with those applicable in other Member States adjusted in accordance with the PPP index, provided that the reference Member States have been selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria and that the comparisons are made on a consistent basis. It is permissible to compare the rates charged in one or several specific user segments if there are indications that the excessive nature of the fees affects those segments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of examining whether a copyright management organisation applies unfair prices within the meaning of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, it is appropriate to compare its rates with those applicable in neighbouring Member States as well as with those applicable in other Member States adjusted in accordance with the PPP index, provided that the reference Member States have been selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria and that the comparisons are made on a consistent basis. It is permissible to compare the rates charged in one or several specific user segments if there are indications that the excessive nature of the fees affects those segments.

| 3. | The difference between the rates compared must be regarded as appreciable if that difference is significant and persistent. Such a difference is indicative of abuse of a dominant position and it is for the copyright management organisation holding a dominant position to show that its prices are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The difference between the rates compared must be regarded as appreciable if that difference is significant and persistent. Such a difference is indicative of abuse of a dominant position and it is for the copyright management organisation holding a dominant position to show that its prices are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders.

| 4. | In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA

(Case C-183/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agriculture - Poultrymeat - Frozen chickens - Export refunds - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Legality - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Articles 162 and 164 - Subject matter and nature of the refunds - Criteria for fixing the amount - Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation - Misuse of powers - ‘Comitology’ - Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 - Article 3(3) - Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets - Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee - Compliance with time limits - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Annulment with maintenance of the effects))

(2017/C 382/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Tilly-Sabco SAS (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and K. Skelly, acting as Agents), Doux SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 January 2016, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (T-397/13, EU:T:2016:8); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 January 2016, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (T-397/13, EU:T:2016:8);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat;

| 3. | Maintains the effects of Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Maintains the effects of Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis

(Case C-184/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Directive 2008/115/EC - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Residence of a national of a Member State within the territory of another Member State despite a prohibition on entering that State - Lawfulness of a decision to withdraw a registration certificate and a further expulsion decision - Possibility to rely, exceptionally, on the unlawfulness of an earlier decision - Translation obligation))

(2017/C 382/23)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea

Defendant: Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a Member State from, first, withdrawing a registration certificate wrongly issued to an EU citizen who was still subject to an exclusion order, and, secondly, adopting a removal order against him based on the sole finding that the exclusion order was still valid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a Member State from, first, withdrawing a registration certificate wrongly issued to an EU citizen who was still subject to an exclusion order, and, secondly, adopting a removal order against him based on the sole finding that the exclusion order was still valid.

| 2. | Directive 2004/38 and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals do not preclude a decision to return an EU citizen, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from being adopted by the same authorities and according to the same procedure as a decision to return a third-country national staying illegally referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, provided that the transposition measures of Directive 2004/38 which are more favourable to that EU citizen are applied. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2004/38 and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals do not preclude a decision to return an EU citizen, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from being adopted by the same authorities and according to the same procedure as a decision to return a third-country national staying illegally referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, provided that the transposition measures of Directive 2004/38 which are more favourable to that EU citizen are applied.

| 3. | The principle of effectiveness does not preclude a legal practice according to which a national of a Member State who is subject to a return order in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not rely, in support of an action against that order, on the unlawfulness of the exclusion order previously adopted against him, in so far as the person concerned had effectively the possibility to contest that latter order in good time in the light of the provisions of Directive 2004/38. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of effectiveness does not preclude a legal practice according to which a national of a Member State who is subject to a return order in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not rely, in support of an action against that order, on the unlawfulness of the exclusion order previously adopted against him, in so far as the person concerned had effectively the possibility to contest that latter order in good time in the light of the provisions of Directive 2004/38.

| 4. | Article 30 of Directive 2004/38 requires the Member States to take every appropriate measure with a view to ensuring that the person concerned understands the content and implications of a decision adopted under Article 27(1) of that directive but that it does not require that decision to be notified to him in a language he understands or which it is reasonable to assume he understands, although he did not bring an application to that effect. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 30 of Directive 2004/38 requires the Member States to take every appropriate measure with a view to ensuring that the person concerned understands the content and implications of a decision adopted under Article 27(1) of that directive but that it does not require that decision to be notified to him in a language he understands or which it is reasonable to assume he understands, although he did not bring an application to that effect.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA

(Case C-186/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency - Exchange rate risk born entirely by the consumer - Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract - Time at which the imbalance must be assessed - Scope of the concept of terms drafted in ‘plain intelligible language’ - Level of information to be procured by the bank))

(2017/C 382/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others

Defendant: Banca Românească SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ within the meaning of that provision, covers a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, incorporated into a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency which was not individually negotiated and according to which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted, as that terms lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract. Therefore, that clause cannot be regarded as being unfair, provided that it is drafted in plain intelligible language. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ within the meaning of that provision, covers a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, incorporated into a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency which was not individually negotiated and according to which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted, as that terms lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract. Therefore, that clause cannot be regarded as being unfair, provided that it is drafted in plain intelligible language.

| 2. | Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language requires that, in the case of loan agreements, financial institutions must provide borrowers with sufficient information to enable them to take prudent and well-informed decisions. In that connection, that requirement means that a term under which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted must be understood by the consumer both at the formal and grammatical level, and also in terms of its actual effects, so that the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, would be aware both of the possibility of a rise or fall in the value of the foreign currency in which the loan was taken out, and would also be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term with regard to his financial obligations. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary checks in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language requires that, in the case of loan agreements, financial institutions must provide borrowers with sufficient information to enable them to take prudent and well-informed decisions. In that connection, that requirement means that a term under which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted must be understood by the consumer both at the formal and grammatical level, and also in terms of its actual effects, so that the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, would be aware both of the possibility of a rise or fall in the value of the foreign currency in which the loan was taken out, and would also be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term with regard to his financial obligations. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary checks in that regard.

| 3. | Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term must be made by reference to the time of conclusion of the contract at issue, taking account all of the circumstances which could have been known to the seller or supplier at that time, and which were such as to affect the future performance of that contract. It is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, and taking account, in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier, in the present case the bank, with regard to the possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in taking out a loan in a foreign currency, of the existence of a possible imbalance within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term must be made by reference to the time of conclusion of the contract at issue, taking account all of the circumstances which could have been known to the seller or supplier at that time, and which were such as to affect the future performance of that contract. It is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, and taking account, in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier, in the present case the bank, with regard to the possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in taking out a loan in a foreign currency, of the existence of a possible imbalance within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/22

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (requests for preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16) v Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha

(Joined Cases C-215/16, C-216/16, C-220/16 and C-221/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Electricity generated by wind power - Directive 2009/28/EC - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 - Aid scheme - Subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) - Administrative charges - Directive 2008/118/EC - General arrangements for excise duty - Article 1(2) - Other indirect taxes for specific purposes - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 4 - Minimum rate of taxation on energy - Levy imposed on turbines designed to produce electricity))

(2017/C 382/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16)

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, in particular, subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 and subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, in particular, subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 and subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity;

| 2. | Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not tax energy products or electricity, within the meaning of Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive, and, therefore, does not fall within its scope |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not tax energy products or electricity, within the meaning of Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive, and, therefore, does not fall within its scope

| 3. | Article 1(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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not constitute a tax imposed on the consumption of energy products or electricity, and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(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 not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not constitute a tax imposed on the consumption of energy products or electricity, and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

(Case C-223/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Loss by those entities of the capacities required - National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor))

(2017/C 382/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Third parties: Consorzio Stabile Infratech, W.E.E. Water Environment Energy SpA, Massimo Fontana, Studio Tecnico Associato Thinkd, Claudio Della Rocca, Nicola Maione, Vittorio Ciotola, Fin.Se.Co. SpA, Edilgen SpA, Site Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) 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 excludes the possibility for an economic operator taking part in a tendering procedure to replace an auxiliary undertaking that has lost required qualifications after the submission of its tender and which results in the automatic exclusion of that operator.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/24

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s.

(Case C-300/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Private creditor test - Conditions of applicability - Application - Investigation obligations on the European Commission))

(2017/C 382/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, J. Holmes QC, and O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission

(Case C-350/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common fisheries policy - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Claim for compensation - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law - Whether possible to rely on that breach - Principle of non-discrimination - Res judicata))

(2017/C 382/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C. and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C. and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

(Case C-503/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC - Theft of a vehicle - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian - Civil liability - Compensation - Compulsory insurance cover - Exclusion clauses - National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers - Compatibility with those directives - Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’))

(2017/C 382/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes

Defendant: Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excluded from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-158/17 P)

(2017/C 382/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. Koch, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 20 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-188/17 P)

(2017/C 382/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Slavo Asenov Todorov (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) declared this appeal manifestly admissible by order of 7 September 2017.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2017 — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

(Case C-245/17)

(2017/C 382/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González

Respondent: Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

Questions referred

The following questions arise:

| 1. | may the ending of the teaching period in the academic year be regarded as an objective ground justifying different treatment for the above-mentioned interim teaching staff as compared with established teaching staff? |
| --- | --- |

1.

may the ending of the teaching period in the academic year be regarded as an objective ground justifying different treatment for the above-mentioned interim teaching staff as compared with established teaching staff?

| 2. | is the fact that interim civil-servant teaching staff whose employment is terminated at the end of the teaching period cannot take their leave on actual rest days, but are paid the remuneration corresponding thereto, compatible with the principle that such interim staff should not be discriminated against? |
| --- | --- |

2.

is the fact that interim civil-servant teaching staff whose employment is terminated at the end of the teaching period cannot take their leave on actual rest days, but are paid the remuneration corresponding thereto, compatible with the principle that such interim staff should not be discriminated against?

| 3. | is an abstract rule like that contained in the Thirteenth Additional Provision of Ley 5/2012, de 12 de julio, de Presupuestos Generales de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha para 2012 (Regional Law 5/2012 of 12 July 2012, on General Budgets of the Government of the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha for 2012), which, among other measures, for reasons of budgetary savings and the fulfilment of deficit objectives, suspended the application of an Agreement dated 10 March 1994 between the Ministry of Education and Science and the ANPE Trade Union, published by means of a Resolution of 15 March 1994 of the Directorate General of Personnel (BOMEC of 28 March 1994), so far as concerns paid leave in July and August for replacements of more than five-and-a-half months and for coverage of vacant posts, and required payment to be made to interim non-university teaching staff in respect of leave corresponding to 22 working days if the interim appointment was for a full academic year, or for the days corresponding thereto on a proportional basis, compatible with the principle that there should be no discrimination against such staff, who fall within the category of fixed-term workers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

is an abstract rule like that contained in the Thirteenth Additional Provision of Ley 5/2012, de 12 de julio, de Presupuestos Generales de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha para 2012 (Regional Law 5/2012 of 12 July 2012, on General Budgets of the Government of the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha for 2012), which, among other measures, for reasons of budgetary savings and the fulfilment of deficit objectives, suspended the application of an Agreement dated 10 March 1994 between the Ministry of Education and Science and the ANPE Trade Union, published by means of a Resolution of 15 March 1994 of the Directorate General of Personnel (BOMEC of 28 March 1994), so far as concerns paid leave in July and August for replacements of more than five-and-a-half months and for coverage of vacant posts, and required payment to be made to interim non-university teaching staff in respect of leave corresponding to 22 working days if the interim appointment was for a full academic year, or for the days corresponding thereto on a proportional basis, compatible with the principle that there should be no discrimination against such staff, who fall within the category of fixed-term workers?

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 —  OJ (*1) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

(Case C-321/17)

(2017/C 382/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
   OJ (*1)

Defendants: Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

By order of 5 October 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

(Case C-437/17)

(2017/C 382/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that in the main proceedings (Paragraph 3(2)(1) in conjunction with Paragraph 3(3) and Paragraph 2(1) of the Urlaubsgesetz (Law on holidays, ‘the UrlG’)), under which a worker who has a total of 25 years of service, but has not completed these with the same Austrian employer, is entitled to only five weeks of annual holiday, whereas a worker who has completed 25 years of service with the same Austrian employer is entitled to six weeks of holiday per year.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 July 2017 — EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o. v Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová

(Case C-448/17)

(2017/C 382/35)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o.

Defendants: Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the judgment in Case C-470/12 Pohotovosť, and the considerations set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union at paragraph 46 of the grounds too, is a legal provision incompatible with the principle of equivalence under EU law when — in the context of the equivalence of the interests protected by law and the protection of consumer rights against unfair contractual terms — it does not permit, without the defendant consumer’s consent, a legal person whose activity involves the collective protection of consumers against unfair contractual terms and is designed to achieve the objective set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (3) of the Civil Code, to participate as another party (intervener) in legal proceedings from the outset and to make effective use, for the consumer’s benefit, of the means of action and defence in court proceedings, in order to secure, in the context of such proceedings, protection from the systematic use of unfair contractual terms; whereas, in other circumstances, another party (intervener), intervening in court proceedings in support of the defendant and having an interest in the definition of the substantive (commercial) law that is the object of the proceedings, does not in fact, unlike a consumer protection association, require the consent of the consumer, on whose behalf it is intervening, in order to take part in the proceedings from the outset and effectively exercise the means of defence and action for the defendant’s benefit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the judgment in Case C-470/12 Pohotovosť, and the considerations set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union at paragraph 46 of the grounds too, is a legal provision incompatible with the principle of equivalence under EU law when — in the context of the equivalence of the interests protected by law and the protection of consumer rights against unfair contractual terms — it does not permit, without the defendant consumer’s consent, a legal person whose activity involves the collective protection of consumers against unfair contractual terms and is designed to achieve the objective set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (3) of the Civil Code, to participate as another party (intervener) in legal proceedings from the outset and to make effective use, for the consumer’s benefit, of the means of action and defence in court proceedings, in order to secure, in the context of such proceedings, protection from the systematic use of unfair contractual terms; whereas, in other circumstances, another party (intervener), intervening in court proceedings in support of the defendant and having an interest in the definition of the substantive (commercial) law that is the object of the proceedings, does not in fact, unlike a consumer protection association, require the consent of the consumer, on whose behalf it is intervening, in order to take part in the proceedings from the outset and effectively exercise the means of defence and action for the defendant’s benefit?

| 2. | In the light also of the findings of the Court of Justice in its judgments in Case C-26/13 and Case C-96/14, must the expression ‘in plain intelligible language’ appearing in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted to the effect that a contractual term may be regarded as not being in plain and intelligible language — with the legal consequence that it is [automatically] subject to judicial review of unfairness — even when the legal institute [body of legal rules governing a specific area of civil law (instrument) which it governs is in itself complicated, it is hard for the average consumer to foresee its legal consequences and in order to understand it professional legal advice is generally necessary, the costs of which are disproportionate to the value of the service which the consumer receives under the agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light also of the findings of the Court of Justice in its judgments in Case C-26/13 and Case C-96/14, must the expression ‘in plain intelligible language’ appearing in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted to the effect that a contractual term may be regarded as not being in plain and intelligible language — with the legal consequence that it is [automatically] subject to judicial review of unfairness — even when the legal institute [body of legal rules governing a specific area of civil law (instrument) which it governs is in itself complicated, it is hard for the average consumer to foresee its legal consequences and in order to understand it professional legal advice is generally necessary, the costs of which are disproportionate to the value of the service which the consumer receives under the agreement?

| 3. | When a court takes a decision on the rights deriving from an agreement concluded with a consumer, asserted against a consumer as defendant, on the sole basis of the applicant’s claims, by way of an order for payment [issued] in summary proceedings, and the provision in Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure precluding the issue of an order for payment if a contract concluded with a consumer contains unfair contractual terms is in no way applied in the proceedings, is it not incompatible with EU law for legislation of a Member State, given the brief period allowed for the lodging of an appeal and the possibility that the consumer may be impossible to find or be inactive, not to make it possible for a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code, effectively to make use, without the consumer’s consent (unless the consumer specifically dissents), of the only opportunity of protecting the consumer, in the form of opposition to the order for payment, in circumstances in which the court fails to fulfil its obligation under Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When a court takes a decision on the rights deriving from an agreement concluded with a consumer, asserted against a consumer as defendant, on the sole basis of the applicant’s claims, by way of an order for payment [issued] in summary proceedings, and the provision in Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure precluding the issue of an order for payment if a contract concluded with a consumer contains unfair contractual terms is in no way applied in the proceedings, is it not incompatible with EU law for legislation of a Member State, given the brief period allowed for the lodging of an appeal and the possibility that the consumer may be impossible to find or be inactive, not to make it possible for a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code, effectively to make use, without the consumer’s consent (unless the consumer specifically dissents), of the only opportunity of protecting the consumer, in the form of opposition to the order for payment, in circumstances in which the court fails to fulfil its obligation under Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

| 4. | May it be considered relevant, for the purpose of the answers to the second and third questions, that the [national] legal order does not accord the consumer the right to mandatory legal assistance and that, failing legal representation, his lack of knowledge in that area gives rise to a significant risk that he will fail to perceive the unfairness of the contractual terms and will not even act to enable the intervention on his behalf, in court proceedings, of a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May it be considered relevant, for the purpose of the answers to the second and third questions, that the [national] legal order does not accord the consumer the right to mandatory legal assistance and that, failing legal representation, his lack of knowledge in that area gives rise to a significant risk that he will fail to perceive the unfairness of the contractual terms and will not even act to enable the intervention on his behalf, in court proceedings, of a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code?

| 5. | Is it not incompatible with EU law, and the requirement that all the circumstances of the case be assessed, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, for legislation, such as that on summary proceedings for the issue of an order for payment (Article 172(1) et seq. of the Slovak Code of Civil Procedure), to permit: (1) the seller or supplier to be given the right to a pecuniary benefit with the effects of a judgment, (2) in the context of summary proceedings, (3) before an administrative officer of the court, (4) solely on the basis of the trader’s claims, and (5) without evidence being taken and in circumstances in which (6) the consumer is not represented by a legal professional, (7) and his defence may not be effectively mounted, without his consent, by a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is it not incompatible with EU law, and the requirement that all the circumstances of the case be assessed, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, for legislation, such as that on summary proceedings for the issue of an order for payment (Article 172(1) et seq. of the Slovak Code of Civil Procedure), to permit: (1) the seller or supplier to be given the right to a pecuniary benefit with the effects of a judgment, (2) in the context of summary proceedings, (3) before an administrative officer of the court, (4) solely on the basis of the trader’s claims, and (5) without evidence being taken and in circumstances in which (6) the consumer is not represented by a legal professional, (7) and his defence may not be effectively mounted, without his consent, by a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code?

---

(1)  OJ L 1993, L 95 p. 25.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2017 — Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-469/17)

(2017/C 382/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Funke Medien NRW GmbH

Applicant and respondent: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Union law on the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1)) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC), and the exceptions or limitations to these rights (Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC) allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Union law on the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1)) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC), and the exceptions or limitations to these rights (Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC) allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law?

| 2. | In which way are the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when ascertaining the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC to the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In which way are the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when ascertaining the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC to the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC)?

| 3. | Can the fundamental rights of freedom of information (second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Charter) or freedom of the media (Article 11(2) of the Charter) justify exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) Directive 2001/29/EC), beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the fundamental rights of freedom of information (second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Charter) or freedom of the media (Article 11(2) of the Charter) justify exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) Directive 2001/29/EC), beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado

(Case C-473/17)

(2017/C 382/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Repsol Butano, S.A.

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, (1) is a measure setting a maximum price for cylinders of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the following circumstances occur?






  — | the measure is adopted as a general measure in relation to all consumers and for an indefinite period ‘while the conditions of competition on this market are not considered to be sufficient’, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, (1) is a measure setting a maximum price for cylinders of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the following circumstances occur?

—

the measure is adopted as a general measure in relation to all consumers and for an indefinite period ‘while the conditions of competition on this market are not considered to be sufficient’,

| — | the measure has already been in force for more than 28 years, |
| --- | --- |

—

the measure has already been in force for more than 28 years,

| — | the measure may contribute to freezing the situation of limited competition by impeding the entry of new operators. |
| --- | --- |

—

the measure may contribute to freezing the situation of limited competition by impeding the entry of new operators.

| 2. | In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, is a measure for the compulsory home delivery of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users or residents in areas that are difficult to access, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the circumstances listed in the previous question occur? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, is a measure for the compulsory home delivery of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users or residents in areas that are difficult to access, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the circumstances listed in the previous question occur?

---

(1)  Judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Sociedad de Transportes SA

(Case C-474/17)

(2017/C 382/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Sociedad de Transportes SA

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?
  In particular:






  (a) | Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

In particular:

(a)

Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code?

| (b) | Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks?

| (c) | If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks?

| (d) | Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State?

| 2. | Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

(Case C-480/17)

(2017/C 382/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frank Montag

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude a national rule under which compulsory contributions to an occupational pension scheme made by a non-resident taxpayer (on the basis of his membership of a bar association in the Member State, which is mandatory on professional grounds for the purposes of his activity carried on in several Member States) are not treated as deductible from income within the framework of limited tax liability, whereas in the case of resident taxpayers national law permits their deduction from income up to a specific ceiling within the framework of unlimited tax liability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude a national rule under which compulsory contributions to an occupational pension scheme made by a non-resident taxpayer (on the basis of his membership of a bar association in the Member State, which is mandatory on professional grounds for the purposes of his activity carried on in several Member States) are not treated as deductible from income within the framework of limited tax liability, whereas in the case of resident taxpayers national law permits their deduction from income up to a specific ceiling within the framework of unlimited tax liability?

| 2. | Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where, in addition to his compulsory contributions, the taxpayer makes additional (voluntary) contributions to the occupational pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where, in addition to his compulsory contributions, the taxpayer makes additional (voluntary) contributions to the occupational pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?

| 3. | Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where the taxpayer, independently of his admission as a lawyer and his contributions to an occupational pension scheme, makes contributions to a voluntary private pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where the taxpayer, independently of his admission as a lawyer and his contributions to an occupational pension scheme, makes contributions to a voluntary private pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner

(Case C-513/17)

(2017/C 382/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Josef Baumgartner

Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty imposed on an undertaking or a manager of an undertaking pursuant to Paragraphs 30, 9 and 130 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (German Law on administrative offences, ‘OWiG’) for an administrative offence committed at the seat of the undertaking may be imposed only by the Member State in whose territory the undertaking has its seat? Or are other Member States also authorised to impose a penalty for the administrative offence when that offence has been detected on their territory?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 1 September 2017 — c.v. SNB-REACT u. a. v Deepak Mehta

(Case C-521/17)

(2017/C 382/41)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: c.v. SNB-REACT u. a.

Defendant: Deepak Mehta

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to recognise collecting societies of trade mark proprietors as persons with standing to pursue legal remedies in their own name to defend the rights of trade mark proprietors and to bring actions before the courts in their own name to enforce the rights of trade mark proprietors? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to recognise collecting societies of trade mark proprietors as persons with standing to pursue legal remedies in their own name to defend the rights of trade mark proprietors and to bring actions before the courts in their own name to enforce the rights of trade mark proprietors?

| 2. | Are Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that even a service provider whose service consists in registering IP addresses, thus enabling them to be anonymously linked to domains, and in renting out those IP addresses, is to be regarded as a service provider within the meaning of those provisions to whom the exemptions from liability provided for there apply? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that even a service provider whose service consists in registering IP addresses, thus enabling them to be anonymously linked to domains, and in renting out those IP addresses, is to be regarded as a service provider within the meaning of those provisions to whom the exemptions from liability provided for there apply?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/34

---

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-564/17)

(2017/C 382/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, G. von Rintelen and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

| — | find that, by failing to adopt, no later than 25 December 2013, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, (1) and in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that, by failing to adopt, no later than 25 December 2013, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, (1) and in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of the directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 70 828,80 per day, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, for failure to comply with the obligation to give notification of the measures transposing Directive 2011/98/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 70 828,80 per day, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, for failure to comply with the obligation to give notification of the measures transposing Directive 2011/98/EU;

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States were required, under the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Directive 2011/98/EU, to adopt the national measures required to transpose the obligations under the directive no later than 25 December 2013. As Belgium has failed to confirm that it has adopted all the measures necessary to fully transpose the directive, the Commission has decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.

In its application, the Commission proposes that the Kingdom of Belgium be ordered to pay a penalty payment of EUR 70 828,80 per day. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement and as well as the deterrent effect in the light of the Member State’s ability to pay.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/35

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission

(Case C-574/17 P)

(2017/C 382/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Combaro SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission;

| — | dismiss Combaro SA’s action as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss Combaro SA’s action as unfounded;

| — | order Combaro SA to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Combaro SA to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

| 1. | Failure of the General Court to characterise the facts correctly in law in regard to the existence of a special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. (1)

  The Commission submits that the General Court alleged erroneous action on its part in so far as, on the one hand, it attributed powers to the Commission which the latter does not at all have or, on the other hand, required it to exercise powers which could no longer contribute to a clarification of the facts. There was, however, no erroneous action on the part of the Commission, with the result that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Failure of the General Court to characterise the facts correctly in law in regard to the existence of a special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. (1)

The Commission submits that the General Court alleged erroneous action on its part in so far as, on the one hand, it attributed powers to the Commission which the latter does not at all have or, on the other hand, required it to exercise powers which could no longer contribute to a clarification of the facts. There was, however, no erroneous action on the part of the Commission, with the result that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.

| 2. | Distortion by the General Court of the evidence as to there being a special situation under Article 239 of the Customs Code.
  The General Court held, contrary to the documents in the case file, that the signatures on the relevant movement certificates were those of Mr R and that Latvia had not provided the original copies of the stamps used by the Jelgava and Bauska customs offices. Had the General Court assessed the evidence correctly, it would necessarily have concluded that the Commission had carried out an adequate assessment of the facts of the case as regards the imports of linen fabric and that it was fully entitled to take the view that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Distortion by the General Court of the evidence as to there being a special situation under Article 239 of the Customs Code.

The General Court held, contrary to the documents in the case file, that the signatures on the relevant movement certificates were those of Mr R and that Latvia had not provided the original copies of the stamps used by the Jelgava and Bauska customs offices. Had the General Court assessed the evidence correctly, it would necessarily have concluded that the Commission had carried out an adequate assessment of the facts of the case as regards the imports of linen fabric and that it was fully entitled to take the view that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.

| 3. | Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code as to the existence of a special situation.
  The General Court failed to balance the Commission’s alleged erroneous action against the interests of the importer, who had used false certificates for the movement of goods. In the absence of a balancing of interests, the General Court incorrectly applied Article 239 of the Customs Code, since in the present case the interests of the European Union in ensuring that the customs provisions are complied with must outweigh the interests of the importer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code as to the existence of a special situation.

The General Court failed to balance the Commission’s alleged erroneous action against the interests of the importer, who had used false certificates for the movement of goods. In the absence of a balancing of interests, the General Court incorrectly applied Article 239 of the Customs Code, since in the present case the interests of the European Union in ensuring that the customs provisions are complied with must outweigh the interests of the importer.

| 4. | Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code with regard to the obvious negligence on the part of Combaro SA.
  The General Court erred in requiring the Commission to prove an intentional infringement of the rules of origin on the part of the importer. Had the rules governing the application of the burden of proof been correctly applied, the General Court would necessarily have recognised that doubts which must justifiably have arisen would have sufficed to place an obligation on an importer to seek information or clarification relevant to the customs clearing procedures in question, at least from his exporters. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code with regard to the obvious negligence on the part of Combaro SA.

The General Court erred in requiring the Commission to prove an intentional infringement of the rules of origin on the part of the importer. Had the rules governing the application of the burden of proof been correctly applied, the General Court would necessarily have recognised that doubts which must justifiably have arisen would have sufficed to place an obligation on an importer to seek information or clarification relevant to the customs clearing procedures in question, at least from his exporters.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---

General Court

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission

(Case T-138/15) (1)

((State aid - Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform - Decision finding no State aid - Non-economic services of general interest))

(2017/C 382/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aanbestedingskalender BV (Ede, Netherlands), Negometrix BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), CTM Solution BV (Breukelen, Netherlands), Stillpoint Applications BV (Amsterdam), Huisinga Beheer BV (Amsterdam), (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and M. Noort, acting as Agents) and Slovak Republic, (represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9548 final of 18 December 2014 on State aid SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Slovakia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Slovakia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL)

(Case T-411/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL - Earlier EU word mark GAP - Cross-appeal - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 382/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM) and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark), the application for registration in respect of goods falling within Class 20 and corresponding to the description ‘furniture’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark), the application for registration in respect of goods falling within Class 20 and corresponding to the description ‘furniture’;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — BMB v EUIPO — Ferrero (Container for sweets)

(Case T-695/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a container for sweets - Earlier international three-dimensional mark - Shape of a standard container which can be filled with sweets - Likelihood of confusion - Application of national law - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 62 and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2017/C 382/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BMB sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland) (represented by: K. Czubkowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 (Case R 1150/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferrero and BMB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — BelTechExport v Council

(Case T-765/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Suspension of measures - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to be heard - Error of assessment))

(2017/C 382/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BelTechExport ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and E. Koškins, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1957 of 29 October 2015 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 149), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1948 of 29 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 62), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BelTechExport ZAO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BelTechExport ZAO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T-206/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 407/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRES TOROS 3 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bodegas Verdúguez, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bodegas Verdúguez, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas)

(Case T-453/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition - Other earlier sign 520 - Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based))

(2017/C 382/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Roussou, M.-M. Theodoridou and F. Christodoulou-Kardiopoulis, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 and 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1; and

| 3. | Orders 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II) (1)

((Civil Service - Appointment - Position of executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Selection and appointment procedure - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Impartiality - Assessment criteria - Appointment of another candidate - Res judicata))

(2017/C 382/50)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: in Case T-495/16 RENV I, M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska and, in Case T-496 RENV II, initially M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, then M. Ekimdzhiev and K. Boncheva, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: G. Berscheid and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the Commission decision of 20 April 2011 by which it proposed to the EMA’s Management Board a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments and of the decision of the EMA’s Management Board of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA and seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Emil Hristov to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-2/12, T-26/15 P, T-27/15 P, T-495/16 RENV I and T-495/16 RENV II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Emil Hristov to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-2/12, T-26/15 P, T-27/15 P, T-495/16 RENV I and T-495/16 RENV II.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-2/12).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Hanschmann v Europol

(Case T-562/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Europol - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period - Compensation - Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal - Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 27/09 and F 104/12))

(2017/C 382/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (Taucha, Germany) (represented by: W. Dammingh and N. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and I.Antypas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of Europol of 29 July 2014 not to renew for an indefinite period the contract awarded to the applicant and to allocate a sum of EUR 10 000 to him on account of the length of the procedure and the prolongation of his state of uncertainty and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ingo Hanschmann to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ingo Hanschmann to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-119/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol

(Case T-563/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Europol - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period - Compensation - Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal - Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 44/09 and F 105/12))

(2017/C 382/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Dammingh and N. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and I.Antypas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of Europol of 29 July 2014 not to renew for an indefinite period the contract awarded to the applicant and to allocate a sum of EUR 10 000 to her on account of the length of the procedure and the prolongation of her state of uncertainty and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Brigitte Knöll to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Brigitte Knöll to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-120/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

(Case T-717/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 1195/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the silhouette of a horse’s head as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)

(Case T-755/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro La Rocca (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2016 (Case R 406/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Take your time Pay After as EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alessandro La Rocca to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alessandro La Rocca to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star)

(Case T-779/16) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star - Earlier Community design - Ground of invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 382/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by: M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 (Case R 878/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between 8 seasons design and Mr Rühland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/45

---

Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council

(Case T-153/17)

(2017/C 382/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 definitively adopted on 5 December 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 definitively adopted on 5 December 2016;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, alleging that, in the present case, the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 adopted by the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, insufficient reasoning and a breach of the duty of care.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/46

---

Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Hernández Díaz v SRB

(Case T-521/17)

(2017/C 382/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Alberto Hernández Díaz (San Martin del Rey Aurelio, Spain) (represented by: L. Hernández Cabeza, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the resolution decision concerning the Banco Popular, on grounds of serious and irreparable irregularities that result in the invalidity of that decision, in that (i) it is based on a Deloitte report which was not independent, (ii) shareholders are subjected to much more significant losses than they would be had an arrangement with creditors been entered into and (iii) the bail-in tool was not applied. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the resolution decision concerning the Banco Popular, on grounds of serious and irreparable irregularities that result in the invalidity of that decision, in that (i) it is based on a Deloitte report which was not independent, (ii) shareholders are subjected to much more significant losses than they would be had an arrangement with creditors been entered into and (iii) the bail-in tool was not applied.

| — | Annul the sale of Banco Popular to the bank acquiring it for the price of EUR 1 on the ground of lack of transparency of the sale process which implies a serious violation of the principle of transparency as well as the principle of competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the sale of Banco Popular to the bank acquiring it for the price of EUR 1 on the ground of lack of transparency of the sale process which implies a serious violation of the principle of transparency as well as the principle of competition.

| — | Order SRB to pay compensation to the shareholders for the compulsory transfer of their shares, the value of which cannot at present be assessed given the lack of transparency of the resolution process. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB to pay compensation to the shareholders for the compulsory transfer of their shares, the value of which cannot at present be assessed given the lack of transparency of the resolution process.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/47

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB

(Case T-554/17)

(2017/C 382/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ramón González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) and Joan González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board has been lodged and, following the completion of the relevant legal procedures, uphold the present action and annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, thereby rendering the implementation of the decision and the actions taken as a result thereof devoid of effects. If the Court does not annul that decision, the applicants claim that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of their shares.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/47

---

Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Algebris (UK) and Others v SRB

(Case T-575/17)

(2017/C 382/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States), Ronit Capital LLP (London) (represented by: T. Soames and J. Vandenbussche, lawyers, R. East, Solicitor, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. (1) in its entirety, or, in the alternative, Article 1 and/or 6 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. (1) in its entirety, or, in the alternative, Article 1 and/or 6 thereof;

| — | order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed serious breaches of the principles of confidentiality and professional secrecy, contrary to Article 339 TFEU and Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) and the case-law of the Court of Justice, thereby also failing to respect the applicants’ right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed serious breaches of the principles of confidentiality and professional secrecy, contrary to Article 339 TFEU and Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) and the case-law of the Court of Justice, thereby also failing to respect the applicants’ right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the European Commission’s application of Articles 14, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of Regulation No 806/2014.






  — | In this regard, the applicants argue that the valuation of Banco Popular, which formed the basis for the resolution action taken under the Resolution Scheme, was not fair, prudent or reliable, and was inconsistent with the ‘no creditor worse off principle’; it did not therefore constitute accurate and reliable and consistent evidence on which to base the Resolution Scheme; and it was not capable of supporting the contested decision. Further and for the same reasons, the Resolution Scheme (and so the contested decision) was manifestly disproportionate by going beyond the measures necessary to secure the resolution objectives. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the European Commission’s application of Articles 14, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of Regulation No 806/2014.

—

In this regard, the applicants argue that the valuation of Banco Popular, which formed the basis for the resolution action taken under the Resolution Scheme, was not fair, prudent or reliable, and was inconsistent with the ‘no creditor worse off principle’; it did not therefore constitute accurate and reliable and consistent evidence on which to base the Resolution Scheme; and it was not capable of supporting the contested decision. Further and for the same reasons, the Resolution Scheme (and so the contested decision) was manifestly disproportionate by going beyond the measures necessary to secure the resolution objectives.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB expropriated the applicants’ property in breach of their fundamental rights as protected by general principles of Union law and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB expropriated the applicants’ property in breach of their fundamental rights as protected by general principles of Union law and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to ensure, in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the Court of Justice, that the applicants were afforded a right to be heard during the resolution process. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to ensure, in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the Court of Justice, that the applicants were afforded a right to be heard during the resolution process.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the resolution scheme was not lawfully endorsed by the Commission and so the contested decision was not lawfully brought into force.






  — | In this connection it is argued that, before adopting its Decision (EU) 2017/1246 endorsing the Resolution Scheme, the European Commission failed to assess properly, or at all, the discretionary aspects of the Resolution Scheme. This constituted a breach of the Commission’s obligations under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and of the principles of the Meroni case-law of the Court of Justice. Accordingly, the SRB committed a manifest error of assessment and law by concluding that its decision adopting the Resolution Scheme could, or had, come into force; further, or alternatively, and in any event, the Resolution Scheme adopted by the contested decision did not lawfully come into force. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the resolution scheme was not lawfully endorsed by the Commission and so the contested decision was not lawfully brought into force.

—

In this connection it is argued that, before adopting its Decision (EU) 2017/1246 endorsing the Resolution Scheme, the European Commission failed to assess properly, or at all, the discretionary aspects of the Resolution Scheme. This constituted a breach of the Commission’s obligations under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and of the principles of the Meroni case-law of the Court of Justice. Accordingly, the SRB committed a manifest error of assessment and law by concluding that its decision adopting the Resolution Scheme could, or had, come into force; further, or alternatively, and in any event, the Resolution Scheme adopted by the contested decision did not lawfully come into force.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (notified under document C(2017) 4038), OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/48

---

Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-600/17)

(2017/C 382/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain), Grupo Nosa Terra 2000, SLU (Vigo), Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) and Industrias Lácteas Asturianas, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/49

---

Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission

(Case T-609/17)

(2017/C 382/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes certain export refunds paid by the French Republic in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes certain export refunds paid by the French Republic in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission based its decision, for the most part, on purported serious failures by the French Republic to fulfil its obligations in the area of checks on the water content of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds.

However, it is incorrect to assert that the French authorities have seriously failed to fulfil those obligations, having regard to the EU legislation and the enhanced measures that have been put in place since 2010. The analyses of the water content form part of the checks on the sound, fair and marketable quality of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds that are carried out on the basis of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1276/2008. According to the applicant, that provision does not require every physical check on frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds to include a laboratory analysis of the water content.

Thus, it considers that it was for the French authorities to determine the control measures to be taken, provided that those measures were proportionate having regard to the financial risk for the EAGF. In that regard, the applicant claims that the French authorities have put in place an ambitious scheme which takes that financial risk into account.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/50

---

Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission

(Case T-615/17)

(2017/C 382/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nicola Ardigo (Lissone, Italy) and UO (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare and rule that






  — | the decisions confirming the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme are annulled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Declare and rule that

—

the decisions confirming the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme are annulled;

| — | the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Appointing Authority of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 in the calculation by that Authority of the deduction of the amount representing the increase in value of that capital between the date of the application for transfer and that of the actual transfer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Appointing Authority of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 in the calculation by that Authority of the deduction of the amount representing the increase in value of that capital between the date of the application for transfer and that of the actual transfer.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural measures, namely breaches by the Appointing Authority of its obligations to state reasons and to establish, through the GIPs, the mathematical formula by which it calculated the coefficients necessary for the conversion of the capital transferred into years of pensionable service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural measures, namely breaches by the Appointing Authority of its obligations to state reasons and to establish, through the GIPs, the mathematical formula by which it calculated the coefficients necessary for the conversion of the capital transferred into years of pensionable service.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/50

---

Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB

(Case T-631/17)

(2017/C 382/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hola, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendants: Single Resolution Board and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/51

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission

(Case T-632/17)

(2017/C 382/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Éva Erdősi Galcsikné (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision Ares(2017)2755900 of 1 June 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision Ares(2017)2755900 of 1 June 2017;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017)5146 final of 17 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017)5146 final of 17 July 2017;

| — | order the Commission to grant the applicant access to all documents relating to EU Pilot procedure 8572/15, CHAP (2015)00353, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to grant the applicant access to all documents relating to EU Pilot procedure 8572/15, CHAP (2015)00353, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: disclosure of the documents at issue would not compromise the protective purpose of investigations
  According to the applicant, the subject matter of EU pilot procedure 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts.
  The applicant maintains that negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent.
  The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would, rather, further that objective, since only an open debate is capable of altering the case-law of the Hungarian courts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: disclosure of the documents at issue would not compromise the protective purpose of investigations

According to the applicant, the subject matter of EU pilot procedure 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts.

The applicant maintains that negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent.

The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would, rather, further that objective, since only an open debate is capable of altering the case-law of the Hungarian courts.

| 2. | Second plea in law: there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents
  The applicant claims that there is a public interest in disclosure of the contested documents in so far as such disclosure would:






  — | lead to a change in the legal culture of the Hungarian courts; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents

The applicant claims that there is a public interest in disclosure of the contested documents in so far as such disclosure would:

—

lead to a change in the legal culture of the Hungarian courts;

| — | make possible an open debate throughout Europe on the Hungarian Government’s interpretation of fundamental rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

make possible an open debate throughout Europe on the Hungarian Government’s interpretation of fundamental rights;

| — | make possible an open debate on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

make possible an open debate on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/52

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission

(Case T-633/17)

(2017/C 382/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017;

| — | order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

According to the applicant, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the contested documents since making the documents available to the public would make it possible for:

| — | the economic interests of consumers to be protected; |
| --- | --- |

—

the economic interests of consumers to be protected;

| — | the internal market to be protected; |
| --- | --- |

—

the internal market to be protected;

| — | the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed;

| — | democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and |
| --- | --- |

—

democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and

| — | the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made evident to citizens. |
| --- | --- |

—

the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made evident to citizens.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/53

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission

(Case T-634/17)

(2017/C 382/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2755260; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2755260;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2017)5145 final of 17 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017)5145 final of 17 July 2017;

| — | order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: The protective purpose of investigations would not be undermined by the disclosure of the contested documents
  The subject matter of EU Pilot Case 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts.
  Negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent.
  The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would rather support that purpose since only a public discussion can alter the case-law of the Hungarian courts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The protective purpose of investigations would not be undermined by the disclosure of the contested documents

The subject matter of EU Pilot Case 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts.

Negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent.

The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would rather support that purpose since only a public discussion can alter the case-law of the Hungarian courts.

| 2. | Second plea in law: There is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents
  It is in the public interest to make the documents publicly available as this would make it possible for:






  — | the legal culture of the Hungarian courts to change; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: There is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents

It is in the public interest to make the documents publicly available as this would make it possible for:

—

the legal culture of the Hungarian courts to change;

| — | the Hungarian Government’ understanding of the interpretation of fundamental rights to be discussed publicly throughout the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Hungarian Government’ understanding of the interpretation of fundamental rights to be discussed publicly throughout the European Union;

| — | a public discussion on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to be initiated; |
| --- | --- |

—

a public discussion on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to be initiated;

| — | the internal market to be protected; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the internal market to be protected; and

| — | the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made clear to citizens. |
| --- | --- |

—

the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made clear to citizens.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/54

---

Action brought on 15 September 2017 – PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-636/17)

(2017/C 382/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier, and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded,

| — | annul the decision, published on 7 July 2017, to update the existing entry of Bisphenol A in the Candidate List as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1, the ‘REACH Regulation’), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, published on 7 July 2017, to update the existing entry of Bisphenol A in the Candidate List as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1, the ‘REACH Regulation’),

| — | order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings, and

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty by applying inconsistent and unforeseeable criteria to assess the alleged endocrine disrupting (‘ED’) properties for human health of BPA. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty by applying inconsistent and unforeseeable criteria to assess the alleged endocrine disrupting (‘ED’) properties for human health of BPA.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed its duty of care.






  — | The defendant failed to establish that BPA is an endocrine disrupting substance for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation, considering that (i) the defendant has only sought to establish that BPA has alleged ‘endocrine disrupting properties’, (ii) the identification of BPA does not meet the criteria laid out in Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation and the general principles of EU law, and (iii) the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the derivation of a safe level as a relevant factor for the assessment of BPA towards the criteria of Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed its duty of care.

—

The defendant failed to establish that BPA is an endocrine disrupting substance for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation, considering that (i) the defendant has only sought to establish that BPA has alleged ‘endocrine disrupting properties’, (ii) the identification of BPA does not meet the criteria laid out in Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation and the general principles of EU law, and (iii) the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the derivation of a safe level as a relevant factor for the assessment of BPA towards the criteria of Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation; and

| — | The defendant failed to take into account all relevant information, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant failed to take into account all relevant information, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to take into consideration expected studies which were acknowledged as relevant for the assessment of BPA’s alleged ED properties, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study, and by not considering the derivation of a safe level as a factor relevant for the establishment of the equivalent level of concern. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to take into consideration expected studies which were acknowledged as relevant for the assessment of BPA’s alleged ED properties, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study, and by not considering the derivation of a safe level as a factor relevant for the establishment of the equivalent level of concern.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Articles 59 and 57(f) of the REACH Regulation by identifying BPA as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of the criteria referred to in Article 57(f), since Article 57(f) only covers substances which have not yet been identified under Article 57(a) to (e). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Articles 59 and 57(f) of the REACH Regulation by identifying BPA as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of the criteria referred to in Article 57(f), since Article 57(f) only covers substances which have not yet been identified under Article 57(a) to (e).

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation since intermediates are exempt from the entire Title VII, and are thus outside the scope of Articles 57 and 59 and outside the scope of authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation since intermediates are exempt from the entire Title VII, and are thus outside the scope of Articles 57 and 59 and outside the scope of authorisation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion of BPA in the Candidate List when it is a non-intermediate exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the Agency could have had recourse. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion of BPA in the Candidate List when it is a non-intermediate exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the Agency could have had recourse.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/55

---

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB

(Case T-637/17)

(2017/C 382/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/56

---

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB

(Case T-638/17)

(2017/C 382/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Helibética, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/57

---

Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB

(Case T-641/17)

(2017/C 382/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Ferri (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Campagnola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that there has been a failure to carry out the supervisory duties initiated by the note of 24 March 2017 for which, following an exchange of correspondence, the competent department of the ECB stated that it was not required to make provision, claiming that the issue relates to both self-protection and supervisory duties with regard to the adoption of standards for monitoring the conduct of Italian banks.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the European Central Bank has not performed the supervisory duties incumbent on it with reference to the following:

| — | Failure promptly to enact the provisions implementing Legislative Decree No 72 of 2015 and subsequently to apply Legislative Decree No 385 of 1993, which has been deemed to continue to apply, in respect of another activity following on from the aforementioned failure by Banca d’Italia to enact those implementing provisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure promptly to enact the provisions implementing Legislative Decree No 72 of 2015 and subsequently to apply Legislative Decree No 385 of 1993, which has been deemed to continue to apply, in respect of another activity following on from the aforementioned failure by Banca d’Italia to enact those implementing provisions.

| — | Failure to order Banca d’Italia to initiate, within the State system, an adaptation of the legislation governing litigation in relation to the application of penalties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to order Banca d’Italia to initiate, within the State system, an adaptation of the legislation governing litigation in relation to the application of penalties.

| — | Failure to monitor the suitability of the criteria for assessing the efficiency of the banking system, which are currently clearly framed in relation to very complex and highly-structured banking institutions, and give no indication that they are flexible or in fact suitable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to monitor the suitability of the criteria for assessing the efficiency of the banking system, which are currently clearly framed in relation to very complex and highly-structured banking institutions, and give no indication that they are flexible or in fact suitable.

| — | Unreliability of the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Frascati’s activities, given that those criteria have clearly been designed and structured to provide an assessment of the appropriateness of a complex and highly-structured banking mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

—

Unreliability of the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Frascati’s activities, given that those criteria have clearly been designed and structured to provide an assessment of the appropriateness of a complex and highly-structured banking mechanism.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/57

---

Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

(Case T-652/17)

(2017/C 382/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ — Application for registration No 14 363 931

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 in Case R 1999/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | definitively reject the other party’s opposition to trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ submitted by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

—

definitively reject the other party’s opposition to trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ submitted by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH;

| — | order EUIPO to allow trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ to proceed to registration for all designated goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to allow trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ to proceed to registration for all designated goods;

| — | at the very least, order EUIPO to grant trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ for all designated goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32; |
| --- | --- |

—

at the very least, order EUIPO to grant trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ for all designated goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32;

| — | order the other party or EUIPO jointly or individually to pay the applicant’s costs, disbursements and fees in the proceedings before the Court and in the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party or EUIPO jointly or individually to pay the applicant’s costs, disbursements and fees in the proceedings before the Court and in the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

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 74(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/58

---

Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

(Case T-668/17)

(2017/C 382/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark)

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 trade mark application No 13 706 726

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 in Case R 2089/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017, No R 2089/2016-4 Eico v Maico, and the opposition decision of 26 October 2016, No B 002528654, and amend them in such a way that the appeal and the opposition are upheld in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017, No R 2089/2016-4 Eico v Maico, and the opposition decision of 26 October 2016, No B 002528654, and amend them in such a way that the appeal and the opposition are upheld in their entirety;

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

—

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

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) thereof.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/59

---

Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-673/17)

(2017/C 382/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium) and Région wallonne (Jambes, Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final);

| — | Declare this action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

| — | Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law. In their opinion, from the outset the Commission disregarded Article 93 TFEU, which institutes specific rules for the transport sector and, accordingly, for ports, thus failing to take account of the intention of the European legislature.

The Commission’s assessment is not justified either in fact or in law and runs counter to the text of Article 1 of the Belgian Income Code (CIR) and the prerogatives of the public authorities to define non-economic activities of general interest.

Nor is the Commission’s position consistent with the Proposal for a Directive of 16 March 2011 (COM/2011/0121 final) on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) which provides, even for commercial companies, for an exemption from tax in respect of subsidies directly linked to the acquisition, construction or improvement of fixed assets.

Furthermore, by giving Belgium formal notice to amend its tax legislation, the Commission is seeking to bypass the taxation competence of the Member States, by imposing a tax harmonisation which is without its competence under Article 113 TFEU. It thus omits to take account of the Member States’ prerogatives to define public service activities and the scope of direct taxation, the obligation to ensure the proper functioning of services of general interest (‘SGIs’) necessary to social and economic cohesion and the discretionary organisation of the organisation of SGIs. The European legislature devolved to the Member States the competence to exempt from taxation activities which they define at their absolute discretion to be public service activities.

The applicants are of the opinion that the essential activities of the internal Walloon ports are SGIs, which are not governed, in accordance with EU law, by the competition rules.

Finally, the European criteria for the definition of State aid are not satisfied in the present case, in particular as regards the criterion of selectiveness.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/60

---

Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Le Port de Bruxelles et Région Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(Case T-674/17)

(2017/C 382/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Le Port de Bruxelles (Brussels, Belgium), Région Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final);

| — | Declare this action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

| — | Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law which is substantially identical or similar to that raised in Case T-673/17, Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/61

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)

(Case T-393/16) (1)

(2017/C 382/75)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/61

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)

(Case T-394/16) (1)

(2017/C 382/76)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---