# Official Journal C 202/26 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 202 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6026 June 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 202

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6026 June 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 202/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 202/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 202/02 | Case C-469/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal — Coordination in the fixing of prices — Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Scope of judicial review — Classification as an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition) | 2 |
| 2017/C 202/03 | Case C-516/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 25(1) — Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries — Effects on the legal position of the parent company) | 2 |
| 2017/C 202/04 | Case C-535/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — General obligation to register and information requirements — Unregistered chemicals — Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union) | 3 |
| 2017/C 202/05 | Case C-559/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 73/239/EEC — Directive 92/49/EEC — Principle of single authorisation — Principle of supervision by the home Member State — Article 40(6) — Concept of irregularities — Reputation of shareholders — Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State) | 4 |
| 2017/C 202/06 | Case C-620/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 12a(1a) — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Travelling personnel — Workers posted to another Member State — Swiss branch — E 101 certificate — Probative value) | 4 |
| 2017/C 202/07 | Case C-672/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/46/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements — Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements — Maximum amounts — Competence of the Member States — National legislation setting those amounts — Mutual recognition — Absence — Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts) | 5 |
| 2017/C 202/08 | Joined Cases C-680/15 and C-681/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf (C 681/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Contract of employment — Legislation of a Member State authorising the incorporation of clauses referring to collective labour agreements after the date of the transfer — Effects with regard to the transferee) | 6 |
| 2017/C 202/09 | Case C-202/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste management — Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece)) | 7 |
| 2017/C 202/10 | Case C-176/16 P: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Registration of the name Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG) — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings) | 7 |
| 2017/C 202/11 | Case C-385/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields) | 8 |
| 2017/C 202/12 | Case C-639/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO | 8 |
| 2017/C 202/13 | Case C-106/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G. | 8 |
| 2017/C 202/14 | Case C-133/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Dănuț Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători CFR Călători SA București | 9 |
| 2017/C 202/15 | Case C-134/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL | 9 |
| 2017/C 202/16 | Case C-140/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo | 10 |
| 2017/C 202/17 | Case C-166/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD | 11 |
| 2017/C 202/18 | Case C-180/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2017 — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie | 12 |
| 2017/C 202/19 | Case C-212/16: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — DUK Versorgungswerk e. V., Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH, in the presence of: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft | 12 |
| 2017/C 202/20 | Case C-269/16: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de lo Social no2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano | 13 |
| 2017/C 202/21 | Case C-489/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, supported by: French Republic | 13 |
| 2017/C 202/22 | Case C-493/16: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others | 13 |
| 2017/C 202/23 | Case C-562/16: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH | 13 |
| 2017/C 202/24 | Case C-627/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial | 14 |
| 2017/C 202/25 | Case C-11/17: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg — Germany) — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG | 14 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 202/26 | Case T-754/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties — Article 11(4) TEU — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Equal treatment) | 15 |
| 2017/C 202/27 | Case T-115/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Deza v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Supplement to the entry of the substance di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006) | 15 |
| 2017/C 202/28 | Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA) (Plant variety rights — Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 — Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO — Principle of impartiality) | 16 |
| 2017/C 202/29 | Case T-680/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination) | 17 |
| 2017/C 202/30 | Case T-262/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA — Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 17 |
| 2017/C 202/31 | Case T-75/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career evaluation report — Appraisal year 2010 — Errors of law — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) | 18 |
| 2017/C 202/32 | Case T-76/16: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Rejection of the application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law) | 18 |
| 2017/C 202/33 | Case T-618/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit — Inadmissibility) | 19 |
| 2017/C 202/34 | Case T-147/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission | 20 |
| 2017/C 202/35 | Case T-217/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission | 20 |
| 2017/C 202/36 | Case T-223/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS) | 21 |
| 2017/C 202/37 | Case T-224/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA) | 22 |
| 2017/C 202/38 | Case T-225/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA) | 23 |
| 2017/C 202/39 | Case T-226/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA) | 24 |
| 2017/C 202/40 | Case T-237/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission | 24 |
| 2017/C 202/41 | Case T-240/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission | 25 |
| 2017/C 202/42 | Case T-265/17: Action brought on 5 May 2017 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN) | 26 |
| 2017/C 202/43 | Case T-266/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT) | 27 |
| 2017/C 202/44 | Case T-376/16: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v CRU | 28 |
| 2017/C 202/45 | Case T-511/16: Order of the General Court of 2 May 2017 — Bermejo Garde v EESC | 28 |
| 2017/C 202/46 | Case T-744/16: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Generis — Farmacêutica v EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP) | 28 |
| 2017/C 202/47 | Case T-47/17: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg) | 28 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 202/02

Case C-469/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal — Coordination in the fixing of prices — Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Scope of judicial review — Classification as an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition)

2

2017/C 202/03

Case C-516/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 25(1) — Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries — Effects on the legal position of the parent company)

2

2017/C 202/04

Case C-535/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — General obligation to register and information requirements — Unregistered chemicals — Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union)

3

2017/C 202/05

Case C-559/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 73/239/EEC — Directive 92/49/EEC — Principle of single authorisation — Principle of supervision by the home Member State — Article 40(6) — Concept of irregularities — Reputation of shareholders — Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State)

4

2017/C 202/06

Case C-620/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 12a(1a) — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Travelling personnel — Workers posted to another Member State — Swiss branch — E 101 certificate — Probative value)

4

2017/C 202/07

Case C-672/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/46/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements — Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements — Maximum amounts — Competence of the Member States — National legislation setting those amounts — Mutual recognition — Absence — Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts)

5

2017/C 202/08

Joined Cases C-680/15 and C-681/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf (C 681/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 3 — Contract of employment — Legislation of a Member State authorising the incorporation of clauses referring to collective labour agreements after the date of the transfer — Effects with regard to the transferee)

6

2017/C 202/09

Case C-202/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste management — Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece))

7

2017/C 202/10

Case C-176/16 P: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Registration of the name Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG) — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings)

7

2017/C 202/11

Case C-385/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields)

8

2017/C 202/12

Case C-639/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO

8

2017/C 202/13

Case C-106/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G.

8

2017/C 202/14

Case C-133/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Dănuț Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători CFR Călători SA București

9

2017/C 202/15

Case C-134/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

9

2017/C 202/16

Case C-140/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

10

2017/C 202/17

Case C-166/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

11

2017/C 202/18

Case C-180/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2017 — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

12

2017/C 202/19

Case C-212/16: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — DUK Versorgungswerk e. V., Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH, in the presence of: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft

in the presence of:

12

2017/C 202/20

Case C-269/16: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de lo Social no2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

o

13

2017/C 202/21

Case C-489/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, supported by: French Republic

13

2017/C 202/22

Case C-493/16: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others

13

2017/C 202/23

Case C-562/16: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

13

2017/C 202/24

Case C-627/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

14

2017/C 202/25

Case C-11/17: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg — Germany) — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG

14

General Court

2017/C 202/26

Case T-754/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties — Article 11(4) TEU — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Equal treatment)

15

2017/C 202/27

Case T-115/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Deza v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Supplement to the entry of the substance di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006)

15

2017/C 202/28

Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA) (Plant variety rights — Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 — Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO — Principle of impartiality)

16

2017/C 202/29

Case T-680/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination)

17

2017/C 202/30

Case T-262/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA — Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

17

2017/C 202/31

Case T-75/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career evaluation report — Appraisal year 2010 — Errors of law — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

18

2017/C 202/32

Case T-76/16: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Rejection of the application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

18

2017/C 202/33

Case T-618/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)

19

2017/C 202/34

Case T-147/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

20

2017/C 202/35

Case T-217/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission

20

2017/C 202/36

Case T-223/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

21

2017/C 202/37

Case T-224/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

22

2017/C 202/38

Case T-225/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

23

2017/C 202/39

Case T-226/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA)

24

2017/C 202/40

Case T-237/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission

24

2017/C 202/41

Case T-240/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

25

2017/C 202/42

Case T-265/17: Action brought on 5 May 2017 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)

26

2017/C 202/43

Case T-266/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

27

2017/C 202/44

Case T-376/16: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v CRU

28

2017/C 202/45

Case T-511/16: Order of the General Court of 2 May 2017 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

28

2017/C 202/46

Case T-744/16: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Generis — Farmacêutica v EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

28

2017/C 202/47

Case T-47/17: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)

28

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/1

---

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

(2017/C 202/01)

Last publication

OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

Past publications

OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission

(Case C-469/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Scope of judicial review - Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’))

(2017/C 202/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: FSL Holdings NV, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaaten, and by C. Verdonck, avocate, J. Auwerx, advocaat, and B. Gielen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV v Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission

(Case C-516/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Whether the unlawful conduct of the subsidiaries may be attributed to the parent company - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25(1) - Limitation period for the imposition of penalties on subsidiaries - Effects on the legal position of the parent company))

(2017/C 202/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Akcros Chemicals Ltd, European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle

(Case C-535/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - General obligation to register and information requirements - Unregistered chemicals - Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union))

(2017/C 202/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

intervening parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that substances which have not be registered at the time of their import into the territory of the European Union in accordance with that regulation may be exported outside that territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

(Case C-559/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 73/239/EEC - Directive 92/49/EEC - Principle of single authorisation - Principle of supervision by the home Member State - Article 40(6) - Concept of ‘irregularities’ - Reputation of shareholders - Prohibition on insurance companies established in a Member State concluding new contracts within the territory of another Member State))

(2017/C 202/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Onix Asigurari SA

Defendant: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) and, in particular, Article 40(6) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the supervisory authorities of a Member State from taking emergency measures, as against an undertaking providing direct insurance other than life assurance operating in its territory under the freedom to provide services, in order to protect the interests of the insured persons and other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out, such as prohibiting it from concluding new insurance contracts in that territory, on the grounds of the failure, whether pre-existing or otherwise, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, such as the requirement of good repute. However, that directive does not preclude that Member State, in exercising the prerogatives it has in emergency situations, from establishing whether certain inadequacies or uncertainties relating to the good repute of the directors of the insurance undertaking concerned present a real and imminent danger that irregularities will occur to the detriment of the interests of the insured persons or other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out and, if so, from taking appropriate measures immediately, such as, where appropriate, prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts in its territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden

(Case C-620/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 12a(1a) - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Travelling personnel - Workers posted to another Member State - Swiss branch - E 101 certificate - Probative value))

(2017/C 202/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

Defendants: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales (Urssaf) d’Alsace, successor in law to the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin, and Sozialversicherungsanstalt des Kantons Graubünden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12a(1a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing 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 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not fall within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 1408/71.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL

(Case C-672/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/46/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements - Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements - Maximum amounts - Competence of the Member States - National legislation setting those amounts - Mutual recognition - Absence - Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts))

(2017/C 202/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan

Party in the main proceedings

Noria Distribution SARL,

Intervening parties: Procureur de la République, Union fédérale des consommateurs des P.O (Que choisir),

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for a procedure for the placing on the market of that Member State of food supplements whose content in nutrients exceeds the maximum daily doses set by that legislation and which are lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member state. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for a procedure for the placing on the market of that Member State of food supplements whose content in nutrients exceeds the maximum daily doses set by that legislation and which are lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member state.

| 2. | The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 of that directive must be set on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all of the elements in Article 5(1) and (2) of that directive, in particular of the upper safe levels established, with respect to the nutrients at issue, after a comprehensive scientific assessment of the risks for public health, based not on general or hypothetical considerations, but on relevant scientific data. It is for the referring court to assess whether the method for the setting of those amounts at issue in the main proceedings complies with those requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 of that directive must be set on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all of the elements in Article 5(1) and (2) of that directive, in particular of the upper safe levels established, with respect to the nutrients at issue, after a comprehensive scientific assessment of the risks for public health, based not on general or hypothetical considerations, but on relevant scientific data. It is for the referring court to assess whether the method for the setting of those amounts at issue in the main proceedings complies with those requirements.

| 3. | The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding that the scientific assessment of the risks referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of that directive, prior to the establishment of upper safe limits which must in particular be taken into account in order to set the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 thereof, be carried out solely on the basis of national scientific opinions, even though recent international scientific opinions concluding in favour of the possibility of setting higher limits are also available on the date of the adoption of the measure at issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding that the scientific assessment of the risks referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of that directive, prior to the establishment of upper safe limits which must in particular be taken into account in order to set the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 thereof, be carried out solely on the basis of national scientific opinions, even though recent international scientific opinions concluding in favour of the possibility of setting higher limits are also available on the date of the adoption of the measure at issue.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Vittoria Graf (C 681/15)

(Joined Cases C-680/15 and C-681/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 3 - Contract of employment - Legislation of a Member State authorising the incorporation of clauses referring to collective labour agreements after the date of the transfer - Effects with regard to the transferee))

(2017/C 202/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH (C-680/15), Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH (C-681/15)

Defendants: Ivan Felja (C 680/15), Vittoria Graf (C-681/15)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a transfer of a business, the continued observance of the rights and obligations of the transferor arising from a contract of employment, extends to the clause which the transferor and the worker agreed pursuant to the principle of freedom of contract, pursuant to which their employment relationship is governed not only by the collective agreement in force on the date of the transfer, but also by agreements subsequent to the transfer and which supplement it, amend it or replace it, if the national law provides for the possibility for the transferee to make adjustments both consensually and unilaterally.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-202/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece)))

(2017/C 202/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Sanfrutos Cano acting as Agents)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by tolerating the operation of the waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece), which does not satisfy the conditions and requirements laid down in the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Article 8(a), Article 11(1) and Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by tolerating the operation of the waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece), which does not satisfy the conditions and requirements laid down in the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Article 8(a), Article 11(1) and Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

| 2) | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission

(Case C-176/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings))

(2017/C 202/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents, and subsequently by: F. Moro, Agent)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Proforec Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Proforec Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/8

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union

(Case C-385/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields))

(2017/C 202/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sharif University of Technology (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/8

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2016 by Foodcare sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2016 in Case T-456/15: Foodcare sp. z o.o. v EUIPO

(Case C-639/16 P)

(2017/C 202/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Żabińska, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dariusz Michalczewski

By order of 11 May 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G.

(Case C-106/17)

(2017/C 202/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paweł Hofsoe

Defendant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G. having its place of establishment in Münster

Question referred

Must the reference, in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), to Article 11(1)(b) thereof be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is engaged in, inter alia, obtaining damages from insurers, and who relies on the acquisition of a debt on a contractual basis from the party directly injured may bring an action for that debt against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for a road accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which that injured party is domiciled?

---

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

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Dănuț Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București

(Case C-133/17)

(2017/C 202/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Dănuț Podilă and Others

Respondent: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time limits and procedures which limit access to judicial remedies for the purposes of classifying work places as characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time limits and procedures which limit access to judicial remedies for the purposes of classifying work places as characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised?

| 2. | Does Article 9(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC preclude a national law which does not sanction an employer’s failure to obtain an assessment of the risks to safety and health during the period of employment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 9(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC preclude a national law which does not sanction an employer’s failure to obtain an assessment of the risks to safety and health during the period of employment?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

(Case C-134/17)

(2017/C 202/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Costel Nicușor Mucea

Respondant: SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

Question referred

Are Articles 114(3) TFEU, 151 TFEU and 153 TFEU and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time-limits and procedures which restrict access to judicial remedies for the purpose of the classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

(Case C-140/17)

(2017/C 202/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Respondent: Gmina Ryjewo

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Articles 167, 168 and 184 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of neutrality, does a municipality have the right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure in the case where:






  — | in the initial period after production (acquisition), the capital goods were used for the purposes of a non-taxable area of activity (in connection with the municipality’s performance of the tasks of a public authority within its area of responsibility); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Articles 167, 168 and 184 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of neutrality, does a municipality have the right to deduct (by effecting an adjustment) input tax on its investment expenditure in the case where:

—

in the initial period after production (acquisition), the capital goods were used for the purposes of a non-taxable area of activity (in connection with the municipality’s performance of the tasks of a public authority within its area of responsibility); and

| — | the use to which the capital goods are put has changed and they will in future be used by the municipality also to carry out taxable transactions? |
| --- | --- |

—

the use to which the capital goods are put has changed and they will in future be used by the municipality also to carry out taxable transactions?

| 2. | Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the capital goods were produced or acquired, the municipality’s intention to use those goods in future to carry out taxable transactions was not indicated clearly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the capital goods were produced or acquired, the municipality’s intention to use those goods in future to carry out taxable transactions was not indicated clearly?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the capital goods will be used for the purpose of carrying out both taxable and non-taxable transactions (in connection with the performance of the tasks of a public authority) and that it is not possible to ascribe specific investment expenditure to one of the abovementioned transaction categories? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that the capital goods will be used for the purpose of carrying out both taxable and non-taxable transactions (in connection with the performance of the tasks of a public authority) and that it is not possible to ascribe specific investment expenditure to one of the abovementioned transaction categories?

---

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

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

(Case C-166/17)

(2017/C 202/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

Respondents: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sporting Club de Braga, Sporting Club de Braga — Futebol, SAD

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concession granted to the casinos by [Decree-Law No 422/89 of 2 December 1989 (the Gaming Law)] amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concession granted to the casinos by [Decree-Law No 422/89 of 2 December 1989 (the Gaming Law)] amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty?

| 2. | Does the exclusive right granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa by Decree-Law No 322/91 of 26 August 1991, as amended by Decree-Law No 469/99 of 6 November 1999, by Decree No 12790 of 30 November 1926, by Decree-Law No 40397 of 24 November 1955, by Decree-Law No 84/85 of 28 March 1985, as amended and [republished] by Decree-Law No 317/2002 of 17 December 2002 and Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the exclusive right granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa by Decree-Law No 322/91 of 26 August 1991, as amended by Decree-Law No 469/99 of 6 November 1999, by Decree No 12790 of 30 November 1926, by Decree-Law No 40397 of 24 November 1955, by Decree-Law No 84/85 of 28 March 1985, as amended and [republished] by Decree-Law No 317/2002 of 17 December 2002 and Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003, amount to an infringement of the principles and economic freedoms laid down in the Treaty?

| 3. | Does Article 21 of the Código da Publicidade (Advertising Code) infringe the principles of freedom establishment and freedom to provide services, resulting also in discrimination between nationals of Member States, because the prohibitions, restrictions and privileges are not justified? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 21 of the Código da Publicidade (Advertising Code) infringe the principles of freedom establishment and freedom to provide services, resulting also in discrimination between nationals of Member States, because the prohibitions, restrictions and privileges are not justified?

| 4. | Do [those prohibitions, restrictions and privileges] amount to an instance of arbitrary discrimination and a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, since they are not justified by any general interest? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do [those prohibitions, restrictions and privileges] amount to an instance of arbitrary discrimination and a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, since they are not justified by any general interest?

| 5. | Does the exclusive right ... granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa in relation to advertising constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Community law? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the exclusive right ... granted to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa in relation to advertising constitute an abuse of a dominant position under Community law?

| 6. | Are Articles 3 and 9 of [the Gaming Law] compatible with Community law? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Are Articles 3 and 9 of [the Gaming Law] compatible with Community law?

| 7. | Are Articles 2 and 3 of Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003 compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the European Union, in so far as they grant an exclusive right to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa to operate online gaming? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Are Articles 2 and 3 of Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003 compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the European Union, in so far as they grant an exclusive right to Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa to operate online gaming?

| 8. | The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in [the Gaming Law]. Therefore, should such provisions be unenforceable and can individuals invoke that lack of enforceability? |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in [the Gaming Law]. Therefore, should such provisions be unenforceable and can individuals invoke that lack of enforceability?

| 9. | The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003. Therefore, are those provisions unenforceable as regards service providers in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Portuguese State did not inform the European Commission of the technical regulations contained in Decree-Law No 282/2003 of 8 November 2003. Therefore, are those provisions unenforceable as regards service providers in Portugal?

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 April 2017 — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-180/17)

(2017/C 202/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Y

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98; ‘the Return Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings challenging a decision which includes a return decision within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect where the third-country national claims that enforcement of the return decision would result in a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the third-country national concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the third-country national concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98; ‘the Return Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings challenging a decision which includes a return decision within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect where the third-country national claims that enforcement of the return decision would result in a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the third-country national concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the third-country national concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?

| 2. | Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings relating to the rejection of an application for the granting of international protection, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of an applicant be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the applicant concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings relating to the rejection of an application for the granting of international protection, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of an applicant be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the applicant concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?

| 3. | In order for there to be such automatic suspensory effect, is it still relevant whether the application for international protection which prompted the procedures of bringing an action in law and a subsequent appeal has been rejected on one of the grounds mentioned in Article 46(6) of Directive 2013/32/EU? Alternatively, does that requirement apply for all categories of asylum decisions as set out in that directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In order for there to be such automatic suspensory effect, is it still relevant whether the application for international protection which prompted the procedures of bringing an action in law and a subsequent appeal has been rejected on one of the grounds mentioned in Article 46(6) of Directive 2013/32/EU? Alternatively, does that requirement apply for all categories of asylum decisions as set out in that directive?

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/12

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — DUK Versorgungswerk e. V., Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH, in the presence of: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft

(Case C-212/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/19)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de lo Social no2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

(Case C-269/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-489/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/21)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others

(Case C-493/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/22)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-562/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/23)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

(Case C-627/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg — Germany) — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG

(Case C-11/17) (1)

(2017/C 202/25)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

General Court

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T-754/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Article 11(4) TEU - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 202/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: B. Kempen, professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and finally by H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposal for a citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Deza v ECHA

(Case T-115/15) (1)

((REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry of the substance di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006))

(2017/C 202/27)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Buchanan, acting as Agents, and by M. Procházka et M. Mašková, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and N. Lyshøj Malte, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Norway (represented by: K. Moen and K. Moe Winther, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of a decision of 12 December 2014 taken by the Executive Director of ECHA by which the existing entry relating to the substance DEHP on the list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007, L 136, p. 3), was supplemented to the effect that that substance is also identified as a substance with endocrine-disrupting properties and which can have serious effects on the environment, within the meaning of Article 57(f) of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA)

(Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15) (1)

((Plant variety rights - Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 - Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO - Principle of impartiality))

(2017/C 202/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CVPO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Re:

In Case T-425/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 003/2010) concerning an application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; in Case T-426/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 002/2014) concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; and, in Case T-428/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 007/2009) concerning an application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

(Case T-680/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination))

(2017/C 202/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, 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, intervening before the General Court: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 2266/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Les Éclaires and L’éclaireur International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)

(Case T-262/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA - Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 202/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 (Case R 0561/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Globo Comunicação e Participações and Globo Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Globo Media, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Globo Media, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/18

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-75/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career evaluation report - Appraisal year 2010 - Errors of law - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 202/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-128/11, EU:F:2015:168), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/18

---

Order of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

(Case T-76/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Rejection of the application - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))

(2017/C 202/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 (Case R 1257/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign AEGYPTISCHE ERDE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ikos GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ikos GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/19

---

Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Dreimane v Commission

(Case T-618/16) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of pensionable service - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Time-limit - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 202/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Dreimane (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Ābiks, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision fixing the number of additional pensionable years to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before she entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to act within a reasonable period in the processing of that transfer request.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | Ms Sandra Dreimane shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Sandra Dreimane shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-48/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/20

---

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-147/17)

(2017/C 202/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros and M. Meng-Papantoni, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Uphold the applicants’ claims for damages by awarding the sum of EUR 123 442 to the first applicant, the sum of EUR 61 721 to the three following applicants and the sum of EUR 120 900 to the fifth applicant or, in the alternative, the sums of EUR 38 227,20, EUR 19 107,60 and EUR 37 440 respectively, together with default interest in each case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the applicants’ claims for damages by awarding the sum of EUR 123 442 to the first applicant, the sum of EUR 61 721 to the three following applicants and the sum of EUR 120 900 to the fifth applicant or, in the alternative, the sums of EUR 38 227,20, EUR 19 107,60 and EUR 37 440 respectively, together with default interest in each case;

| — | Order the defendant[s] to pay the costs, whatever the outcome of the dispute. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant[s] to pay the costs, whatever the outcome of the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants allege an infringement of the fundamental principle of prohibition of discrimination insofar as it requires different treatment of different situations, and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which gives effect to that principle.

They complain, claiming significant financial losses as a result of their State obligations being subject to Law 4050/12, also known as ‘PSI’ (Private Sector Investment), that they received the same treatment (including the same rate of ‘haircut’) as legal persons, in particular banks and specialised funds, despite their fundamental differences.

They hold, firstly, the Eurogroup President and/or the Eurogroup as such responsible for this, since they prohibited not only the exemption of natural persons from the ‘haircut’ but also from any later compensatory measure, and, secondly, the Commission, which gave its agreement and consent to such an infringement of the abovementioned principle and of Article 21 of the Charter, despite the obligation place on it by Article 17 TEU, as interpreted by the judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/20

---

Action brought on 3 April 2017 — FVE Holýšov I and Others v Commission

(Case T-217/17)

(2017/C 202/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FVE Holýšov I s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) and 27 other applicants (represented by: A. Reuter, H. Wendt, C. Bürger, T. Christner, W. Schumacher, A. Compes and T. Herbold, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | to declare void the defendant’s Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016, State Aid SA.40171 (2015/NN) (1), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources in the Czech Republic; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to declare void the defendant’s Decision C(2016) 7827 final of 28 November 2016, State Aid SA.40171 (2015/NN) (1), concerning the promotion of electricity production from renewable energy sources in the Czech Republic; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging by its letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations the defendant has already decided that the Czech Republic’s RE promotion scheme does not constitute State aid, and Defendant is, as a matter of law, bound to this decision, which it has not revoked and is not allowed to revoke. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging by its letter of July 2004 to the relevant industry associations the defendant has already decided that the Czech Republic’s RE promotion scheme does not constitute State aid, and Defendant is, as a matter of law, bound to this decision, which it has not revoked and is not allowed to revoke.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of applicants’ legitimate expectations and certainty of law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of applicants’ legitimate expectations and certainty of law.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant Czech promotion scheme does not constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant Czech promotion scheme does not constitute State aid.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision forces the Czech Republic to implement an overreaching review mechanism which violates the applicants' legitimate expectations in the reliability of the scheme. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision forces the Czech Republic to implement an overreaching review mechanism which violates the applicants' legitimate expectations in the reliability of the scheme.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on errors in fact in that it finds an obligation of the grid operators to pass on RE cost to power customers. There was no such obligation under Czech law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on errors in fact in that it finds an obligation of the grid operators to pass on RE cost to power customers. There was no such obligation under Czech law.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 5 paragraph 1 of the EU Treaty (limitation of competences by the principle of conferral). |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 5 paragraph 1 of the EU Treaty (limitation of competences by the principle of conferral).

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on manifest error of assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 2017, p. 2

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/21

---

Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

(Case T-223/17)

(2017/C 202/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS’ — European Union trade mark No 3 383 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2522/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action in its entirety;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of fundamental principles and basic procedural requirements, such as the burden of proof, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, the rights of defence or to be heard, and the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of fundamental principles and basic procedural requirements, such as the burden of proof, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, the rights of defence or to be heard, and the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/22

---

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-224/17)

(2017/C 202/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bio proof ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 4 368 239

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2521/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action in its entirety;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/23

---

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-225/17)

(2017/C 202/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bio proof ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 4 582 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 311/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action in its entirety;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/24

---

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Rustproof System ADAPTA)

(Case T-226/17)

(2017/C 202/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Rustproof System ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 9 905 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2408/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action in its entirety;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17. |
| --- | --- |

—

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/24

---

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-237/17)

(2017/C 202/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, Abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the EAGF and the EAFRD in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, fruit and vegetables sector, in relation to the investigation (FV 2011/003/ES), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 766 final of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the EAGF and the EAFRD in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, fruit and vegetables sector, in relation to the investigation (FV 2011/003/ES),

| — | 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, alleging infringement of Article 11(1)(a) and (d)(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18), in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).






  — | The Kingdom of Spain submits that the Commission infringed Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2200/96, as regards the producer organisation Tilla Huelva, in considering that the three members of that organisation did not meet the ‘producer’ condition and that, consequently, the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation 2200/96 relating to the requirements of democratic scrutiny had not been observed, since that organisation was at all times composed of producers, with the result that the rules of democratic scrutiny laid down in Article 11(1)(d)(3) of Regulation 2200/96 and Article 14 of Commission Regulation 1432/2003, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Regulation 1782/2003 were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(1)(a) and (d)(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18), in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

—

The Kingdom of Spain submits that the Commission infringed Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2200/96, as regards the producer organisation Tilla Huelva, in considering that the three members of that organisation did not meet the ‘producer’ condition and that, consequently, the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation 2200/96 relating to the requirements of democratic scrutiny had not been observed, since that organisation was at all times composed of producers, with the result that the rules of democratic scrutiny laid down in Article 11(1)(d)(3) of Regulation 2200/96 and Article 14 of Commission Regulation 1432/2003, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Regulation 1782/2003 were fulfilled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).






  — | In the applicant’s view, the use of a flat-rate assessment in order to impose a financial correction on Andalucia is contrary to what is now Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (which replaces Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005) and the Guidelines concerning the calculations of financial consequences contained in Document VI/5330/97. The flat-rate correction imposed is unlawful and, in any event, disproportionate. The Commission should have imposed a one-off correction in the cases in which there were actually deficiencies. In the alternative, the flat-rate correction should have been 5 %. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

—

In the applicant’s view, the use of a flat-rate assessment in order to impose a financial correction on Andalucia is contrary to what is now Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (which replaces Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005) and the Guidelines concerning the calculations of financial consequences contained in Document VI/5330/97. The flat-rate correction imposed is unlawful and, in any event, disproportionate. The Commission should have imposed a one-off correction in the cases in which there were actually deficiencies. In the alternative, the flat-rate correction should have been 5 %.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/25

---

Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

(Case T-240/17)

(2017/C 202/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Campine NV (Beerse, Belgium) and Campine Recycling NV (Beerse) (represented by: C. Verdonck, S. De Cock and Q. Silvestre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare its application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its application admissible;

| — | annul Article 1 and 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE (‘the contested decision’), to the extent that it holds that the Applicants have infringed Article 101 TFUE; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 and 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE (‘the contested decision’), to the extent that it holds that the Applicants have infringed Article 101 TFUE;

| — | in subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the contested decision to the extent it imposes a fine on the Applicants of EUR 8 158 000,00 and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments of the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

in subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the contested decision to the extent it imposes a fine on the Applicants of EUR 8 158 000,00 and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments of the application;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging alleging a number of procedural heads of complaint including the duty to give reasons relating to the determination of the amount of the fine and in particular the need for the adjustment applied under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1) and regarding the percentage of the applied increase. The Applicants also submit that the Commission breached their rights of defense, their right to be heard and the principle of good administration by not stating the intention to apply an increase under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines in the Statement of Objections or in any Supplementary Statement of Objections. They also plead infringement of the duty to give reasons, the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality because the Commission increased the amount of the Applicants’ fine by 10 % based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines and applied this uniform increase to all the undertakings that had participated in the alleged infringement, without taking into account that the Applicants’ individual participation differed greatly from that of the other undertakings involved. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging alleging a number of procedural heads of complaint including the duty to give reasons relating to the determination of the amount of the fine and in particular the need for the adjustment applied under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1) and regarding the percentage of the applied increase. The Applicants also submit that the Commission breached their rights of defense, their right to be heard and the principle of good administration by not stating the intention to apply an increase under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines in the Statement of Objections or in any Supplementary Statement of Objections. They also plead infringement of the duty to give reasons, the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality because the Commission increased the amount of the Applicants’ fine by 10 % based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines and applied this uniform increase to all the undertakings that had participated in the alleged infringement, without taking into account that the Applicants’ individual participation differed greatly from that of the other undertakings involved.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging alleging that the contested decision is erroneous as it has not established to the requisite legal standard that the Applicants committed an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The Applicants invoke both the contested decision’s incorrect assessment of the evidence as well as the evidence’s inability to support the contested decision’s finding that the Applicants were a party to the infringement found in Article 1 of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging alleging that the contested decision is erroneous as it has not established to the requisite legal standard that the Applicants committed an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The Applicants invoke both the contested decision’s incorrect assessment of the evidence as well as the evidence’s inability to support the contested decision’s finding that the Applicants were a party to the infringement found in Article 1 of the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, if the Court were to conclude that the Applicants have been engaged in any agreement or practice infringing Article 101(1) TFEU, an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) and the Fining Guidelines due to an incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement as well as the mitigating circumstances and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, if the Court were to conclude that the Applicants have been engaged in any agreement or practice infringing Article 101(1) TFEU, an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) and the Fining Guidelines due to an incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement as well as the mitigating circumstances and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, to the extent the Court would not annul the contested decision because of the procedural heads of complaint in the first plea in law, that these procedural breaches should at least give rise to an annulment of the increase of the fine imposed under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, to the extent the Court would not annul the contested decision because of the procedural heads of complaint in the first plea in law, that these procedural breaches should at least give rise to an annulment of the increase of the fine imposed under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines.

---

(1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/26

---

Action brought on 5 May 2017 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)

(Case T-265/17)

(2017/C 202/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ExpressVPN Ltd (Glen Vine, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXPRESSVPN’ — Application for registration No 1 265 562

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 in Case R 1352/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision to permit the mark proceed to registration on the basis that the mark is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character and the basis of the evidence of acquired distinctiveness submitted to the examiner and to the Fifth Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to permit the mark proceed to registration on the basis that the mark is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character and the basis of the evidence of acquired distinctiveness submitted to the examiner and to the Fifth Board of Appeal;

| — | issue an order for payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

issue an order for payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b)(c), 7(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b)(c), 7(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/27

---

Action brought on 9 May 2017 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)

(Case T-266/17)

(2017/C 202/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Party applying for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘UROAKUT’ — application No 13 854 146

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1221/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action and amend the contested decision in such a way that the opposition to the EU trade mark application No 13 854 146 UROAKUT is rejected; in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v CRU

(Case T-376/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 2 May 2017 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case T-511/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/45)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-23/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Generis — Farmacêutica v EUIPO — Corpak MedSystems (CORGRIP)

(Case T-744/16) (1)

(2017/C 202/46)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

---

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing of a green ring to a support leg)

(Case T-47/17) (1)

(2017/C 202/47)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

---