# Official Journal C 144/8 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 144 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 608 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 144

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 608 May 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 144/01 | 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 144/01

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 144/02 | Case C-141/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Doux SA, in administration v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 — Article 15(1) — Article 16 — Frozen or quick-frozen chickens — Maximum limit for water content — Obsolescence of that limit — Practical measures for checks — Counter-analysis — Regulation No 612/2009 — Article 28 — Export refunds on agricultural products — Conditions for granting — Sound and fair marketable quality — Products marketable in normal conditions) | 2 |
| 2017/C 144/03 | Case C-173/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Article 32(1)(c) — Determination of the customs value — Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued — Meaning — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 160 — Condition of sale of the goods being valued — Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods — Article 158(3) — Adjustment and apportionment measures) | 3 |
| 2017/C 144/04 | Case C-321/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 3(a) — Articles 11 and 12 — Cessation of activities of an installation — Surrender of unused allowances — Period from and including 2008 to 2012 — No compensation — Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme) | 4 |
| 2017/C 144/05 | Case C-342/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of lawyers to provide services — Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land — Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary) | 5 |
| 2017/C 144/06 | Case C-390/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Point 6 of Annex III — Validity — Procedure — Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion — No fresh consultation of the Parliament — Article 98(2) — Validity — Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically — Principle of equal treatment — Comparability of two situations — Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support) | 5 |
| 2017/C 144/07 | Case C-398/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 6(1)(e) — Data subject to disclosure in the companies register — First Directive 68/151/EEC — Article 3 — Winding-up of the company concerned — Restriction of access to that data by third parties) | 6 |
| 2017/C 144/08 | Case C-406/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Articles 5 and 27 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 7 — Enhanced protection in the event of dismissal of employees with disabilities — No such protection for civil servants with disabilities — General principal of equal treatment) | 7 |
| 2017/C 144/09 | Case C-448/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States — Common system of taxation applicable — Corporation tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Scope — Article 2(c) — Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt — Taxation at a zero rate) | 8 |
| 2017/C 144/10 | Case C-484/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order — Concept of court — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an authentic document — Authentic instrument) | 8 |
| 2017/C 144/11 | Case C-551/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Temporal and material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt — Included — Concept of court — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an authentic document) | 9 |
| 2017/C 144/12 | Case C-573/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Medical treatment using oxygen — Reduced VAT rate — Oxygen cylinders — Standard rate of VAT — Oxygen concentrators) | 10 |
| 2017/C 144/13 | Case C-615/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement) | 10 |
| 2017/C 144/14 | Case C-660/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 106(2) TFEU — Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market) | 11 |
| 2017/C 144/15 | Case C-14/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Companies of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Merger by acquisition — Prior approval of the tax authority — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax evasion or avoidance — Freedom of establishment) | 11 |
| 2017/C 144/16 | Case C-100/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Transfer of mines at a price below real market value — Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction — Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted) | 12 |
| 2017/C 144/17 | Case C-105/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Rural Development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 33b — Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring — Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations) | 13 |
| 2017/C 144/18 | Case C-638/16 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 25(1)(a) — Visa with limited territorial validity — Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations — Concept of international obligations — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Geneva Convention — Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established — No obligation) | 13 |
| 2017/C 144/19 | Case C-576/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA) | 14 |
| 2017/C 144/20 | Case C-674/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-753/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 14 |
| 2017/C 144/21 | Case C-675/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-461/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 16 |
| 2017/C 144/22 | Case C-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 17 |
| 2017/C 144/23 | Case C-685/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt | 18 |
| 2017/C 144/24 | Case C-18/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2017 — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben | 18 |
| 2017/C 144/25 | Case C-46/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen | 19 |
| 2017/C 144/26 | Case C-51/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss v OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt. | 20 |
| 2017/C 144/27 | Case C-52/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2017 — VTB Bank (Austria) AG | 21 |
| 2017/C 144/28 | Case C-53/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 2 February 2017 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium | 22 |
| 2017/C 144/29 | Case C-58/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2017 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 23 |
| 2017/C 144/30 | Case C-61/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG | 23 |
| 2017/C 144/31 | Case C-62/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG | 24 |
| 2017/C 144/32 | Case C-63/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl | 25 |
| 2017/C 144/33 | Case C-65/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte | 25 |
| 2017/C 144/34 | Case C-68/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ | 26 |
| 2017/C 144/35 | Case C-69/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2017 — Gamesa Wind România S.R.L. v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili | 27 |
| 2017/C 144/36 | Case C-72/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG | 28 |
| 2017/C 144/37 | Case C-77/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides | 28 |
| 2017/C 144/38 | Case C-78/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides | 29 |
| 2017/C 144/39 | Case C-80/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana | 30 |
| 2017/C 144/40 | Case C-90/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 February 2017 — Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira | 31 |
| 2017/C 144/41 | Case C-105/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova | 32 |
| 2017/C 144/42 | Case C-111/17 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ | 32 |
| 2017/C 144/43 | Case C-130/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria | 33 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 144/44 | Case T-117/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission (Actions for annulment — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States — Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission — Refusal of the request — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory measure — No new substantive particulars — Inadmissibility) | 34 |
| 2017/C 144/45 | Case T-132/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark popchrono — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2017/C 144/46 | Case T-231/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Haswani v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Modification of the application — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Proportionality — Non-contractual liability) | 35 |
| 2017/C 144/47 | Case T-239/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cryo-Save — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark — Burden of proof — Declaration of revocation) | 36 |
| 2017/C 144/48 | Case T-336/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Windrush Aka v EUIPO — Dammers (The Specials) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark The Specials — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 37 |
| 2017/C 144/49 | Case T-473/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Capella v EUIPO — Abus (APUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark APUS — Earlier national word mark ABUS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Successive restrictions of the trade mark application before the Board of Appeal — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Competence of the Board of Appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95) | 37 |
| 2017/C 144/50 | Case T-495/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN — Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 38 |
| 2017/C 144/51 | Case T-174/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 39 |
| 2017/C 144/52 | Case T-175/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002) | 39 |
| 2017/C 144/53 | Case T-216/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LE VAL FRANCE — Earlier EU word mark VIÑA DEL VAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 40 |
| 2017/C 144/54 | Case T-425/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Genius — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 40 |
| 2017/C 144/55 | Case T-430/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 41 |
| 2017/C 144/56 | Case T-455/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — Fernández González v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Employment of temporary staff in permanent posts — Plea of illegality — Error of law) | 42 |
| 2017/C 144/57 | Case T-323/13: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL — Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO — No need to adjudicate) | 42 |
| 2017/C 144/58 | Case T-747/14: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 43 |
| 2017/C 144/59 | Case T-21/16: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 43 |
| 2017/C 144/60 | Case T-22/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering — Corrective measures — No invitation to act — Lack of precision in the application — Act not open to challenge — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 44 |
| 2017/C 144/61 | Case T-295/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA — Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility) | 45 |
| 2017/C 144/62 | Case T-380/16: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Popescu v Romania (Manifest lack of jurisdiction) | 45 |
| 2017/C 144/63 | Case T-556/16: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 — GX v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 46 |
| 2017/C 144/64 | Case T-625/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (Interim measures — European Chemicals Agency — REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Decision imposing an administrative charge and an additional fee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 46 |
| 2017/C 144/65 | Case T-855/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA (Interim proceedings — REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings — Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency) | 47 |
| 2017/C 144/66 | Case T-48/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament (Interim measures — Financing of a political party — Institutional law — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency) | 47 |
| 2017/C 144/67 | Case T-99/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA | 48 |
| 2017/C 144/68 | Case T-134/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission | 49 |
| 2017/C 144/69 | Case T-135/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission | 50 |
| 2017/C 144/70 | Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission | 51 |
| 2017/C 144/71 | Case T-148/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament | 52 |
| 2017/C 144/72 | Case T-152/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission | 53 |
| 2017/C 144/73 | Case T-158/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB | 54 |
| 2017/C 144/74 | Case T-160/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission | 55 |
| 2017/C 144/75 | Case T-164/17: Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK) | 55 |
| 2017/C 144/76 | Case T-167/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission | 56 |
| 2017/C 144/77 | Case T-171/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA) | 57 |
| 2017/C 144/78 | Case T-176/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one) | 58 |
| 2017/C 144/79 | Case T-178/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE) | 58 |
| 2017/C 144/80 | Case T-179/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX) | 59 |
| 2017/C 144/81 | Case T-335/12: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 144/82 | Case T-527/12: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 144/83 | Case T-225/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 144/84 | Case T-411/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 144/85 | Case T-554/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission | 60 |
| 2017/C 144/86 | Case T-13/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission | 61 |
| 2017/C 144/87 | Case T-697/14: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO) | 61 |
| 2017/C 144/88 | Case T-150/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission | 61 |
| 2017/C 144/89 | Case T-151/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission | 61 |
| 2017/C 144/90 | Case T-174/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission | 61 |
| 2017/C 144/91 | Case T-432/15: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA) | 62 |
| 2017/C 144/92 | Case T-117/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA) | 62 |
| 2017/C 144/93 | Case T-173/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA) | 62 |
| 2017/C 144/94 | Case T-252/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale) | 62 |
| 2017/C 144/95 | Case T-253/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale) | 62 |
| 2017/C 144/96 | Case T-356/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima) | 63 |
| 2017/C 144/97 | Case T-384/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council | 63 |
| 2017/C 144/98 | Case T-731/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Perifereia Stereas Elladas v Commission | 63 |
| 2017/C 144/99 | Case T-896/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC) | 63 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 144/02

Case C-141/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Doux SA, in administration v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 — Article 15(1) — Article 16 — Frozen or quick-frozen chickens — Maximum limit for water content — Obsolescence of that limit — Practical measures for checks — Counter-analysis — Regulation No 612/2009 — Article 28 — Export refunds on agricultural products — Conditions for granting — Sound and fair marketable quality — Products marketable in normal conditions)

2

2017/C 144/03

Case C-173/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Community Customs Code — Article 32(1)(c) — Determination of the customs value — Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued — Meaning — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 160 — Condition of sale of the goods being valued — Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods — Article 158(3) — Adjustment and apportionment measures)

3

2017/C 144/04

Case C-321/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 3(a) — Articles 11 and 12 — Cessation of activities of an installation — Surrender of unused allowances — Period from and including 2008 to 2012 — No compensation — Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme)

4

2017/C 144/05

Case C-342/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of lawyers to provide services — Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land — Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary)

5

2017/C 144/06

Case C-390/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Point 6 of Annex III — Validity — Procedure — Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion — No fresh consultation of the Parliament — Article 98(2) — Validity — Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically — Principle of equal treatment — Comparability of two situations — Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support)

5

2017/C 144/07

Case C-398/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 6(1)(e) — Data subject to disclosure in the companies register — First Directive 68/151/EEC — Article 3 — Winding-up of the company concerned — Restriction of access to that data by third parties)

6

2017/C 144/08

Case C-406/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Articles 5 and 27 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 7 — Enhanced protection in the event of dismissal of employees with disabilities — No such protection for civil servants with disabilities — General principal of equal treatment)

7

2017/C 144/09

Case C-448/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States — Common system of taxation applicable — Corporation tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Scope — Article 2(c) — Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt — Taxation at a zero rate)

8

2017/C 144/10

Case C-484/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order — Concept of court — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an authentic document — Authentic instrument)

8

2017/C 144/11

Case C-551/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Temporal and material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt — Included — Concept of court — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an authentic document)

9

2017/C 144/12

Case C-573/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Medical treatment using oxygen — Reduced VAT rate — Oxygen cylinders — Standard rate of VAT — Oxygen concentrators)

10

2017/C 144/13

Case C-615/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement)

10

2017/C 144/14

Case C-660/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 106(2) TFEU — Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)

11

2017/C 144/15

Case C-14/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Companies of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Merger by acquisition — Prior approval of the tax authority — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax evasion or avoidance — Freedom of establishment)

11

2017/C 144/16

Case C-100/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Transfer of mines at a price below real market value — Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction — Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted)

12

2017/C 144/17

Case C-105/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Rural Development — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 33b — Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring — Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations)

13

2017/C 144/18

Case C-638/16 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Article 25(1)(a) — Visa with limited territorial validity — Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations — Concept of international obligations — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Geneva Convention — Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established — No obligation)

13

2017/C 144/19

Case C-576/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)

14

2017/C 144/20

Case C-674/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-753/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

14

2017/C 144/21

Case C-675/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-461/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

16

2017/C 144/22

Case C-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

17

2017/C 144/23

Case C-685/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt

18

2017/C 144/24

Case C-18/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2017 — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben

18

2017/C 144/25

Case C-46/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

19

2017/C 144/26

Case C-51/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss v OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

20

2017/C 144/27

Case C-52/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2017 — VTB Bank (Austria) AG

21

2017/C 144/28

Case C-53/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 2 February 2017 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

22

2017/C 144/29

Case C-58/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2017 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

23

2017/C 144/30

Case C-61/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

23

2017/C 144/31

Case C-62/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

24

2017/C 144/32

Case C-63/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

25

2017/C 144/33

Case C-65/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

25

2017/C 144/34

Case C-68/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ

26

2017/C 144/35

Case C-69/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2017 — Gamesa Wind România S.R.L. v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

27

2017/C 144/36

Case C-72/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

28

2017/C 144/37

Case C-77/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

28

2017/C 144/38

Case C-78/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

29

2017/C 144/39

Case C-80/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

30

2017/C 144/40

Case C-90/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 February 2017 — Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

31

2017/C 144/41

Case C-105/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova

32

2017/C 144/42

Case C-111/17 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ

32

2017/C 144/43

Case C-130/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

33

General Court

2017/C 144/44

Case T-117/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission (Actions for annulment — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States — Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission — Refusal of the request — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory measure — No new substantive particulars — Inadmissibility)

34

2017/C 144/45

Case T-132/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark popchrono — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

34

2017/C 144/46

Case T-231/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Haswani v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Modification of the application — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment — Proportionality — Non-contractual liability)

35

2017/C 144/47

Case T-239/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cryo-Save — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark — Burden of proof — Declaration of revocation)

36

2017/C 144/48

Case T-336/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Windrush Aka v EUIPO — Dammers (The Specials) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark The Specials — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

37

2017/C 144/49

Case T-473/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Capella v EUIPO — Abus (APUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark APUS — Earlier national word mark ABUS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Successive restrictions of the trade mark application before the Board of Appeal — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Competence of the Board of Appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

37

2017/C 144/50

Case T-495/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN — Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

38

2017/C 144/51

Case T-174/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

39

2017/C 144/52

Case T-175/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

39

2017/C 144/53

Case T-216/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LE VAL FRANCE — Earlier EU word mark VIÑA DEL VAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

40

2017/C 144/54

Case T-425/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Genius — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

40

2017/C 144/55

Case T-430/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

41

2017/C 144/56

Case T-455/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — Fernández González v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Employment of temporary staff in permanent posts — Plea of illegality — Error of law)

42

2017/C 144/57

Case T-323/13: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL — Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO — No need to adjudicate)

42

2017/C 144/58

Case T-747/14: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

43

2017/C 144/59

Case T-21/16: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

43

2017/C 144/60

Case T-22/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB (Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering — Corrective measures — No invitation to act — Lack of precision in the application — Act not open to challenge — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

44

2017/C 144/61

Case T-295/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA — Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

45

2017/C 144/62

Case T-380/16: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Popescu v Romania (Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

45

2017/C 144/63

Case T-556/16: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 — GX v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

46

2017/C 144/64

Case T-625/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (Interim measures — European Chemicals Agency — REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Decision imposing an administrative charge and an additional fee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

46

2017/C 144/65

Case T-855/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA (Interim proceedings — REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings — Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

47

2017/C 144/66

Case T-48/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament (Interim measures — Financing of a political party — Institutional law — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency)

47

2017/C 144/67

Case T-99/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA

48

2017/C 144/68

Case T-134/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

49

2017/C 144/69

Case T-135/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission

50

2017/C 144/70

Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission

51

2017/C 144/71

Case T-148/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

52

2017/C 144/72

Case T-152/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission

53

2017/C 144/73

Case T-158/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB

54

2017/C 144/74

Case T-160/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission

55

2017/C 144/75

Case T-164/17: Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

55

2017/C 144/76

Case T-167/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission

56

2017/C 144/77

Case T-171/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

57

2017/C 144/78

Case T-176/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

58

2017/C 144/79

Case T-178/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

58

2017/C 144/80

Case T-179/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)

59

2017/C 144/81

Case T-335/12: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

60

2017/C 144/82

Case T-527/12: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission

60

2017/C 144/83

Case T-225/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

60

2017/C 144/84

Case T-411/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

60

2017/C 144/85

Case T-554/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

60

2017/C 144/86

Case T-13/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

61

2017/C 144/87

Case T-697/14: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)

61

2017/C 144/88

Case T-150/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

61

2017/C 144/89

Case T-151/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

61

2017/C 144/90

Case T-174/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

61

2017/C 144/91

Case T-432/15: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

62

2017/C 144/92

Case T-117/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

62

2017/C 144/93

Case T-173/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

62

2017/C 144/94

Case T-252/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

62

2017/C 144/95

Case T-253/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

62

2017/C 144/96

Case T-356/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

63

2017/C 144/97

Case T-384/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

63

2017/C 144/98

Case T-731/16: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Perifereia Stereas Elladas v Commission

63

2017/C 144/99

Case T-896/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

63

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/1

---

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

(2017/C 144/01)

Last publication

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017

Past publications

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017

OJ C 104, 3.4.2017

OJ C 95, 27.3.2017

OJ C 86, 20.3.2017

OJ C 78, 13.3.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Doux SA, in administration v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-141/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 - Article 15(1) - Article 16 - Frozen or quick-frozen chickens - Maximum limit for water content - Obsolescence of that limit - Practical measures for checks - Counter-analysis - Regulation No 612/2009 - Article 28 - Export refunds on agricultural products - Conditions for granting - Sound and fair marketable quality - Products marketable in normal conditions))

(2017/C 144/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Doux SA, in administration

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The examination of the third question did not bring to light any evidence able to affect the validity of the limits for water content in frozen chicken meat laid down in Article 15(1) and Annexes VI and VII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2012 of 19 December 2012. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The examination of the third question did not bring to light any evidence able to affect the validity of the limits for water content in frozen chicken meat laid down in Article 15(1) and Annexes VI and VII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2012 of 19 December 2012.

| 2. | Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2011 of 23 February 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen or quick-frozen chickens with a water content exceeding the limits set by Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are not marketable in normal conditions on the territory of the European Union and do not satisfy the requirement of sound and fair marketable quality, even if they are accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2011 of 23 February 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen or quick-frozen chickens with a water content exceeding the limits set by Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are not marketable in normal conditions on the territory of the European Union and do not satisfy the requirement of sound and fair marketable quality, even if they are accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority.

| 3. | Since Annexes VI and VII to Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are sufficiently precise for the purpose of carrying out the checks on frozen and quick-frozen chickens intended for export with export refunds, the fact that a Member State has not adopted practical measures, whose adoption is provided for in Article 18(2) of that regulation, does not prevent those checks from being relied on against the undertakings concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since Annexes VI and VII to Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are sufficiently precise for the purpose of carrying out the checks on frozen and quick-frozen chickens intended for export with export refunds, the fact that a Member State has not adopted practical measures, whose adoption is provided for in Article 18(2) of that regulation, does not prevent those checks from being relied on against the undertakings concerned.

| 4. | An exporter of frozen or quick-frozen chickens may, in accordance with Article 118(2) and Article 119(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) may, first, be present or represented when the goods are examined and when samples are taken and, second, may request a further examination or sampling of the goods if he considers that the results obtained by the competent authorities are not valid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

An exporter of frozen or quick-frozen chickens may, in accordance with Article 118(2) and Article 119(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) may, first, be present or represented when the goods are examined and when samples are taken and, second, may request a further examination or sampling of the goods if he considers that the results obtained by the competent authorities are not valid.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-173/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(c) - Determination of the customs value - Royalties or licence fees in respect of the goods being valued - Meaning - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 160 - ‘Condition of sale’ of the goods being valued - Payment of royalties or licence fees to an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer of the goods - Article 158(3) - Adjustment and apportionment measures))

(2017/C 144/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Healthcare GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as, first, not requiring the amount of royalties or licence fees to be determined at the time when a licence agreement was concluded or when the customs debt was incurred in order for those royalties or licence fees to be regarded as related to the goods being valued and, second, allowing such royalties or licence fees to be ‘related to the goods being valued’ even if those royalties or licence fees relate only partly to those goods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as, first, not requiring the amount of royalties or licence fees to be determined at the time when a licence agreement was concluded or when the customs debt was incurred in order for those royalties or licence fees to be regarded as related to the goods being valued and, second, allowing such royalties or licence fees to be ‘related to the goods being valued’ even if those royalties or licence fees relate only partly to those goods.

| 2. | Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 160 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2006 of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that royalties or licence fees are a ‘condition of sale’ of the goods being valued where, within a single group of undertakings, those royalties or licence fees are required to be paid by an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer and were paid to that same undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 160 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2006 of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that royalties or licence fees are a ‘condition of sale’ of the goods being valued where, within a single group of undertakings, those royalties or licence fees are required to be paid by an undertaking related to both the seller and the buyer and were paid to that same undertaking.

| 3. | Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1875/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment and apportionment measures, referred to in those provisions respectively, may be applied where the customs value of the goods at issue has been determined, not on the basis of Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, but on the basis of the alternative method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 32(1)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1875/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment and apportionment measures, referred to in those provisions respectively, may be applied where the customs value of the goods at issue has been determined, not on the basis of Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, but on the basis of the alternative method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Luxembourg) — ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA v State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-321/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 3(a) - Articles 11 and 12 - Cessation of activities of an installation - Surrender of unused allowances - Period from and including 2008 to 2012 - No compensation - Broad logic of the greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading scheme))

(2017/C 144/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange and Schifflange SA

Defendant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the competent authority to require the surrender, without full or partial compensation, of unused allowances which have been improperly issued to an operator, as a result of the failure by the latter to comply with the obligation to inform the competent authority in due time of the cessation of the operation of an installation.

The allowances issued after an operator has ceased the activities performed in the installation to which those allowances relate, without informing the competent authority beforehand, cannot be classified as emissions ‘allowances’ within the meaning of Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Regulation No 219/2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

(Case C-342/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of lawyers to provide services - Possibility for Member States to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the drafting of formal documents for creating or transferring interests in land - Legislation of a Member State requiring that the authenticity of the signature on a request for entry in the land register be certified by a notary))

(2017/C 144/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Leopoldine Gertraud Piringer

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognising in that Member State such authentication carried out by a lawyer established in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognising in that Member State such authentication carried out by a lawyer established in another Member State.

| 2. | Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognition in that Member State of such authentication carried out, in accordance with his or her national law, by a lawyer established in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which authentication of signatures appended to the instruments necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to notaries, and as consequently excluding the possibility of recognition in that Member State of such authentication carried out, in accordance with his or her national law, by a lawyer established in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — proceedings brought by the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

(Case C-390/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 6 of Annex III - Validity - Procedure - Amendment of a proposal for a Council directive after the Parliament has given an opinion - No fresh consultation of the Parliament - Article 98(2) - Validity - Reduced rate of VAT precluded from being applied to the supply of digital books electronically - Principle of equal treatment - Comparability of two situations - Supply of digital books electronically and on all physical means of support))

(2017/C 144/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

Other parties: Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prokurator Generalny

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, or of Article 98(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III thereto.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni

(Case C-398/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 6(1)(e) - Data subject to disclosure in the companies register - First Directive 68/151/EEC - Article 3 - Winding-up of the company concerned - Restriction of access to that data by third parties))

(2017/C 144/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce

Defendant: Salvatore Manni

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(e), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, as amended by Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to determine whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive may apply to the authority responsible for keeping, respectively, the central register, commercial register or companies register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol

(Case C-406/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Articles 5 and 27 - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 7 - Enhanced protection in the event of dismissal of employees with disabilities - No such protection for civil servants with disabilities - General principal of equal treatment))

(2017/C 144/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petya Milkova

Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be construed as allowing legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on employees with certain disabilities specific advance protection in the event of dismissal, without conferring such protection on civil servants with the same disabilities, unless it has been established that there has been an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. When making that determination, the comparison of the situations must be based on an analysis focusing on all the relevant rules of national law governing the positions of employees with a particular disability, on the one hand, and the positions of civil servants with the same disability, on the other, having regard, in particular, to the purpose of the protection against dismissal at issue in the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be construed as allowing legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on employees with certain disabilities specific advance protection in the event of dismissal, without conferring such protection on civil servants with the same disabilities, unless it has been established that there has been an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. When making that determination, the comparison of the situations must be based on an analysis focusing on all the relevant rules of national law governing the positions of employees with a particular disability, on the one hand, and the positions of civil servants with the same disability, on the other, having regard, in particular, to the purpose of the protection against dismissal at issue in the main proceedings;

| 2. | In the event that Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment, precludes legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to comply with EU law would require that the scope of the national rules protecting employees with a particular disability should be extended, so that those protective rules also benefit civil servants with the same disability. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment, precludes legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to comply with EU law would require that the scope of the national rules protecting employees with a particular disability should be extended, so that those protective rules also benefit civil servants with the same disability.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Staat v Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

(Case C-448/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States - Common system of taxation applicable - Corporation tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Scope - Article 2(c) - Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt - Taxation at a zero rate))

(2017/C 144/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgische Staat

Defendants: Wereldhave Belgium Comm. VA, Wereldhave International NV, Wereldhave NV

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be construed to the effect that Article 5(1) does not preclude legislation of a Member State whereby an advance tax on investment income is levied on dividends paid by a subsidiary established in that Member State to a fiscal investment institution established in another Member State which is subject to corporation tax at a zero rate, provided that all of its profits are paid to its shareholders, since such an institution does not constitute a ‘company of a Member State’ for the purposes of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

(Case C-484/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ - Authentic instrument))

(2017/C 144/10)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

| 2. | Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn

(Case C-551/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Temporal and material scope - Civil and commercial matters - Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt - Included - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’))

(2017/C 144/11)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

Defendant: Sven Klaus Tederahn

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.

| 2. | Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA

(Case C-573/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Medical treatment using oxygen - Reduced VAT rate - Oxygen cylinders - Standard rate of VAT - Oxygen concentrators))

(2017/C 144/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Oxycure Belgium SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Annex III, points 3 and 4, thereto, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the standard rate of value added tax is applicable to the supply or rental of oxygen concentrators, while that legislation provides for the application of the reduced value added tax rate on the supply of oxygen cylinders

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission

(Case C-615/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement))

(2017/C 144/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, A. Fall, L. Eskenazi and C. Erol, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, G. Meessen and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S

(Case C-660/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 106(2) TFEU - Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market))

(2017/C 144/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S.E. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and by L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, advokat), TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and TV2/Danmark A/S; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and TV2/Danmark A/S;

| 3. | Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

(Case C-14/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Companies of different Member States - Common system of taxation - Merger by acquisition - Prior approval of the tax authority - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 11(1)(a) - Tax evasion or avoidance - Freedom of establishment))

(2017/C 144/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil

Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In so far as Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States does not carry out exhaustive harmonisation, EU law allows for the assessment of the compatibility of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the light of primary law, where that legislation was adopted to transpose into national law the option provided for in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States does not carry out exhaustive harmonisation, EU law allows for the assessment of the compatibility of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the light of primary law, where that legislation was adopted to transpose into national law the option provided for in that provision.

| 2. | Article 49 TFEU and Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 90/434 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a cross-border merger, makes the granting of the tax advantages applicable to such an operation under that directive, in the present case the deferral of the taxation of the capital gains relating to the assets transferred by a French company to a company established in another Member State, subject to a process of prior approval under which, in order to obtain that approval, the taxpayer must show that the operation concerned is justified for commercial reasons, that it does not have as its principal objective, or as one of its principal objectives, tax evasion or tax avoidance and that its terms make it possible for the capital gains deferred for tax purposes to be taxed in the future, whereas in the case of a national merger such a deferral is granted without the taxpayer being made subject to such a process. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 TFEU and Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 90/434 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a cross-border merger, makes the granting of the tax advantages applicable to such an operation under that directive, in the present case the deferral of the taxation of the capital gains relating to the assets transferred by a French company to a company established in another Member State, subject to a process of prior approval under which, in order to obtain that approval, the taxpayer must show that the operation concerned is justified for commercial reasons, that it does not have as its principal objective, or as one of its principal objectives, tax evasion or tax avoidance and that its terms make it possible for the capital gains deferred for tax purposes to be taxed in the future, whereas in the case of a national merger such a deferral is granted without the taxpayer being made subject to such a process.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou v Hellenic Republic, European Commission

(Case C-100/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Transfer of mines at a price below real market value - Exemption from taxes on the transfer transaction - Assessment of the amount of the advantage granted))

(2017/C 144/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (represented by: V. Christianos and I. Soufleros, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic, European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (T-233/11 and T-262/11, EU:T:2015:948) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to respond to Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s argument based on the purpose for which the expert report on the appraisal of the mines in Cassandra (Greece) had been drawn up during 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (T-233/11 and T-262/11, EU:T:2015:948) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court failed to respond to Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s argument based on the purpose for which the expert report on the appraisal of the mines in Cassandra (Greece) had been drawn up during 2004;

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismissess Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismissess Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE;

| 4. | Orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Poland v European Commission

(Case C-105/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Rural Development - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33b - Support for semi-subsistence farms undergoing restructuring - Obligation to spend at least 50 % of the support on restructuring operations))

(2017/C 144/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X and X v État belge

(Case C-638/16 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Article 25(1)(a) - Visa with limited territorial validity - Issuing of a visa on humanitarian grounds or because of international obligations - Concept of ‘international obligations’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Geneva Convention - Issuing of a visa where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is established - No obligation))

(2017/C 144/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X and X

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for a visa with limited territorial validity made on humanitarian grounds by a third-country national, on the basis of Article 25 of the code, to the representation of the Member State of destination that is within the territory of a third country, with a view to lodging, immediately upon his or her arrival in that Member State, an application for international protection and, thereafter, to staying in that Member State for more than 90 days in a 180-day period, does not fall within the scope of that code but, as EU law currently stands, solely within that of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/14

---

Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)

(Case C-576/16 P)

(2017/C 144/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: TVR Italia Srl (represented by: F. Caricato, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, TVR Automotive Ltd

By order of 2 March 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered TVR Italia Srl to bear its own costs.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/14

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-753/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-674/16 P)

(2017/C 144/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: V. Volpi, P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Guess? IP Holder LP

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings;

| — | order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-753/15 (the judgment under appeal”), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of October 14, 2015, in Case R 1703/2014-4, which had reversed the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1, 2014 upholding Gucci’s opposition vis-à-vis the EU designation of International Registration No. 1090048, in class 9 (the ‘contested mark’), in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-753/15 (the judgment under appeal”), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of October 14, 2015, in Case R 1703/2014-4, which had reversed the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1, 2014 upholding Gucci’s opposition vis-à-vis the EU designation of International Registration No. 1090048, in class 9 (the ‘contested mark’), in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’).

| 2. | The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of refusal set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of refusal set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

| 3. | The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public ... will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’, and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 32 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public ... will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’, and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 32 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue.

| 4. | However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(l)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(l)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation.

| 5. | Furthermore, the General Court infringed its duty to state reasons for its judgments, because it completely overlooked the above mentioned survey pool in its assessment, without providing any reasoning, not even implicitly, which makes it possible to understand why it disregarded this crucial piece of evidence. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Furthermore, the General Court infringed its duty to state reasons for its judgments, because it completely overlooked the above mentioned survey pool in its assessment, without providing any reasoning, not even implicitly, which makes it possible to understand why it disregarded this crucial piece of evidence.

| 6. | In light of the above, the Appellant requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment under appeal and order both the EUIPO and Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In light of the above, the Appellant requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment under appeal and order both the EUIPO and Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)

OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/16

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-461/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-675/16 P)

(2017/C 144/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: V. Volpi, P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Guess? IP Holder LP

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings;

| — | order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-461/15 (‘the judgment under appeal’), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of May 27, 2015, in Case R 2049/2014-44, which had upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division of July 31, 2014, which had dismissed its application for a declaration of invalidity against EUTM Registration No. 5538012, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16. 18, 25 and 35 (the ‘contested mark’) in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-461/15 (‘the judgment under appeal’), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of May 27, 2015, in Case R 2049/2014-44, which had upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division of July 31, 2014, which had dismissed its application for a declaration of invalidity against EUTM Registration No. 5538012, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16. 18, 25 and 35 (the ‘contested mark’) in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’).

| 2. | The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of invalidity set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of invalidity set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

| 3. | The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public ... will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’ and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 30 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public ... will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’ and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 30 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue.

| 4. | However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation.

---

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/17

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-678/16 P)

(2017/C 144/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15

| — | Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5

| — | Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567

| — | Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33 |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

| — | Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (1) in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark. If the correct approach had been taken by the General Court it would have led to a finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the earlier mark.

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(5) EUTMR in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt

(Case C-685/16)

(2017/C 144/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EV

Defendant: Finanzamt Lippstadt

Question referred

Are the provisions regarding the free movement of capital and payment transactions in Article 63 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding Paragraph 9 No 7 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz 2002, as amended by the 2008 Jahressteuergesetz (annual tax act) of 20 December 2007 (BGBl. I 2007, 3150) in so far as those provisions cause the trade tax deduction of the profit and add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a capital company whose management and registered office are located outside the Federal Republic of Germany to be tied to stricter requirements than for the deduction of the profit and the add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a non-tax-exempt domestic capital company or by that part of the trade earnings of a domestic undertaking allocated to a permanent establishment not located in Germany?

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2017 — Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA and Others v Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben

(Case C-18/17)

(2017/C 144/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche SpA, Dragan Panic, Ivan Arnautov, Jakov Mandic, Miroslav Brnjac, Nikolai Dorassevitch, Alen Mihovic

Defendant: Arbeitsmarktservice Leoben

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 12 of Chapter 2, Free movement of persons, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of workers employed in an undertaking established in Croatia by requiring a work permit, where this posting takes place by means of transfer to a company established in Italy [Or. 2] so that the Italian company can provide a service in Austria, and the work carried out by the Croatian workers for the Italian company on the construction of a wire rod mill in Austria is restricted to providing this service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the Italian company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 12 of Chapter 2, Free movement of persons, of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of workers employed in an undertaking established in Croatia by requiring a work permit, where this posting takes place by means of transfer to a company established in Italy [Or. 2] so that the Italian company can provide a service in Austria, and the work carried out by the Croatian workers for the Italian company on the construction of a wire rod mill in Austria is restricted to providing this service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the Italian company?

| 2. | Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of Russian and Belarusian workers employed in a company established in Italy by requiring a work permit, if this posting takes place by means of transfer to a second company established in Italy for the purpose of the provision by the second company of a service in Austria, and the work of the Russian and/or Belarusian workers for the second company is restricted to providing its service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the second company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services to be interpreted as meaning that Austria is entitled to restrict the posting of Russian and Belarusian workers employed in a company established in Italy by requiring a work permit, if this posting takes place by means of transfer to a second company established in Italy for the purpose of the provision by the second company of a service in Austria, and the work of the Russian and/or Belarusian workers for the second company is restricted to providing its service in Austria and there is no employment relationship between them and the second company?

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

(Case C-46/17)

(2017/C 144/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hubertus John

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Questions referred

| 1. | Is clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is attached as an Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is attached as an Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?

| 2. | If the Court answers the Question 1 in the affirmative:
  Does the incompatibility of the national legislation referred to Question 1 with clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement also apply when the termination is postponed for the first time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court answers the Question 1 in the affirmative:

Does the incompatibility of the national legislation referred to Question 1 with clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement also apply when the termination is postponed for the first time?

| 3. | Are Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 1, 2(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss v OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

(Case C-51/17)

(2017/C 144/26)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teréz Ilyés, Emil Kiss

Defendants: OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

Questions referred

| 1) | Is a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer and which, owing to the removal of an unfair contractual term which established a bid-offer spread and the obligation to bear the corresponding exchange rate risk, has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects as a consequence of the intervention of the legislature following disputes concerning validity which affected a large number of contracts considered to be a clause which is not individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive (1) and which therefore falls within the scope of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer and which, owing to the removal of an unfair contractual term which established a bid-offer spread and the obligation to bear the corresponding exchange rate risk, has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects as a consequence of the intervention of the legislature following disputes concerning validity which affected a large number of contracts considered to be a clause which is not individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive (1) and which therefore falls within the scope of the Directive?

| 2) | If a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer falls within the scope of the Directive, is the exclusion in Article 1(2) of the Directive to be interpreted as also referring to a contractual term which reflects mandatory statutory provisions within the meaning of paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in RWE Vertrieb AG, C-92/11, which have been adopted or have come into force after the conclusion of the contract? Does that exclusion also extend to a contractual term which has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects after the conclusion of the contract as a consequence of a mandatory statutory provision which remedies the invalidity caused by the unfairness of a contractual term which makes it impossible to perform the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer falls within the scope of the Directive, is the exclusion in Article 1(2) of the Directive to be interpreted as also referring to a contractual term which reflects mandatory statutory provisions within the meaning of paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in RWE Vertrieb AG, C-92/11, which have been adopted or have come into force after the conclusion of the contract? Does that exclusion also extend to a contractual term which has become part of the contract with ex tunc effects after the conclusion of the contract as a consequence of a mandatory statutory provision which remedies the invalidity caused by the unfairness of a contractual term which makes it impossible to perform the contract?

| 3) | If, according to the replies to the above questions, it is possible to examine the unfairness of a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer, is it to be understood that the requirement for plain intelligible language to which Article 4(2) of the Directive refers is also met if the obligation to provide information required by law and formulated in necessarily general terms is fulfilled in the terms set out in the facts, or is it also necessary to communicate information concerning the risk to the consumer of which the financial institution is aware or to which it might have access at the time the contract is concluded? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If, according to the replies to the above questions, it is possible to examine the unfairness of a contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer, is it to be understood that the requirement for plain intelligible language to which Article 4(2) of the Directive refers is also met if the obligation to provide information required by law and formulated in necessarily general terms is fulfilled in the terms set out in the facts, or is it also necessary to communicate information concerning the risk to the consumer of which the financial institution is aware or to which it might have access at the time the contract is concluded?

| 4) | Is the fact that, at the time the contract was concluded, the contractual terms relating to the power to make unilateral amendments and to the bid-offer spread — which, years later, turned out to be unfair — appeared in the contract together with the term relating to the assumption of the exchange rate risk, so that, as a cumulative effect of those terms, the consumer had no means of foreseeing how the payment obligations or the mechanism for varying them would evolve, relevant from the point of view of the requirement for clarity and transparency and of the provisions in point 1(i) of the Annex to the Directive, for the purposes of interpreting Article 4(1) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

4)

Is the fact that, at the time the contract was concluded, the contractual terms relating to the power to make unilateral amendments and to the bid-offer spread — which, years later, turned out to be unfair — appeared in the contract together with the term relating to the assumption of the exchange rate risk, so that, as a cumulative effect of those terms, the consumer had no means of foreseeing how the payment obligations or the mechanism for varying them would evolve, relevant from the point of view of the requirement for clarity and transparency and of the provisions in point 1(i) of the Annex to the Directive, for the purposes of interpreting Article 4(1) of the Directive?

| 5) | If the national court declares that the contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer is unfair, is it required, when determining the legal effects in accordance with the rules of national law, also to take into account of its own motion, while respecting the right of the parties to present argument in inter partes proceedings, the unfairness of other contractual terms which have not been relied on by the applicants in their action? Does the principle that the court should act of its own motion in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice also apply if the applicant is a consumer or, having regard to the position occupied by the principle of the autonomy of the parties in the whole proceedings and to the particular features of the proceedings, does the principle that the parties have the right to delimit the subject matter of an action, in that case, preclude examination by the court of its own motion? |
| --- | --- |

5)

If the national court declares that the contractual term which places the exchange rate risk on the consumer is unfair, is it required, when determining the legal effects in accordance with the rules of national law, also to take into account of its own motion, while respecting the right of the parties to present argument in inter partes proceedings, the unfairness of other contractual terms which have not been relied on by the applicants in their action? Does the principle that the court should act of its own motion in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice also apply if the applicant is a consumer or, having regard to the position occupied by the principle of the autonomy of the parties in the whole proceedings and to the particular features of the proceedings, does the principle that the parties have the right to delimit the subject matter of an action, in that case, preclude examination by the court of its own motion?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2017 — VTB Bank (Austria) AG

(Case C-52/17)

(2017/C 144/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VTB Bank (Austria) AG

Respondent: Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsicht

Questions referred

| 1. | Are provisions of European Union secondary legislation (in particular, for example, Article 64 or 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (1)) applicable to the levying by the authorities of interest pursuant to a Member State’s legal provisions under which a credit institution, on exceeding the limit for large exposures under Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, (2) is to have interest of 2 per cent of the excess over the limit for large exposures, calculated on an annual basis, levied on it for 30 days? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are provisions of European Union secondary legislation (in particular, for example, Article 64 or 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (1)) applicable to the levying by the authorities of interest pursuant to a Member State’s legal provisions under which a credit institution, on exceeding the limit for large exposures under Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, (2) is to have interest of 2 per cent of the excess over the limit for large exposures, calculated on an annual basis, levied on it for 30 days?

| 2. | Does EU law (in particular, Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, as corrected by the Corrigendum (OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6), preclude a national provision such as that which was contained in Paragraph 97(1)(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on Banking) (as amended by BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) I No 532/2014) where, despite the fact that the conditions for applying the exemption provided for in Article 395(5) are satisfied, (absorption) interest is levied for a breach of Article 395(1)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law (in particular, Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, as corrected by the Corrigendum (OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6), preclude a national provision such as that which was contained in Paragraph 97(1)(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on Banking) (as amended by BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) I No 532/2014) where, despite the fact that the conditions for applying the exemption provided for in Article 395(5) are satisfied, (absorption) interest is levied for a breach of Article 395(1)?

| 3. | Is Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/17) (SSM Framework Regulation) (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ can be deemed to exist simply where an undertaking submits a report to the supervisor, or can a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ be deemed to exist where a supervisory decision has already been rendered in a parallel procedure for similar breaches? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/17) (SSM Framework Regulation) (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ can be deemed to exist simply where an undertaking submits a report to the supervisor, or can a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ be deemed to exist where a supervisory decision has already been rendered in a parallel procedure for similar breaches?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1.

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 2 February 2017 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

(Case C-53/17)

(2017/C 144/28)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fövárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt.

Defendant: Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 (1) which is worded ‘Enterprises which have one or other of such relationships through a natural person or group of natural persons acting jointly are also considered linked enterprises if they engage in their activity or in part of their activity in the same relevant market or in adjacent markets’ to be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a global group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another automatically and regardless of other circumstances, without it being necessary to examine in detail whether they are in fact in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) or whether they are acting jointly on the same market; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 (1) which is worded ‘Enterprises which have one or other of such relationships through a natural person or group of natural persons acting jointly are also considered linked enterprises if they engage in their activity or in part of their activity in the same relevant market or in adjacent markets’ to be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a global group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another automatically and regardless of other circumstances, without it being necessary to examine in detail whether they are in fact in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) or whether they are acting jointly on the same market;

| 2. | If not, must that subparagraph be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another only where they are in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, must that subparagraph be interpreted as meaning that enterprises carrying out their activities on the same market as members of a group of companies held by the same group of proprietors are considered to be ‘linked enterprises’ vis-à-vis one another only where they are in one of the relationships referred to in Article 3(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d)?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2017 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-58/17)

(2017/C 144/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Must Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ in Article 3(h) of Decision 2011/278/EU covers only incompletely oxidised carbon in a gaseous state, or does it also include incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Miriam Bichat v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-61/17)

(2017/C 144/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Miriam Bichat

Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
  Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:

Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
  Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

| 4. | Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

| 5. | If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
  What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:

What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Daniela Chlubna v APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-62/17)

(2017/C 144/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daniela Chlubna

Defendant: APSB — Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
  Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:

Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
  Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

| 4. | Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

| 5. | If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
  What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:

What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

(Case C-63/17)

(2017/C 144/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banque Solfea SA

Defendant: Jean-François Veitl

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 6,75772 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; [i]f the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at that particular decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated APR of 6,75 % to be considered correct?

---

(1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

(Case C-65/17)

(2017/C 144/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

Respondent: CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper construction of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, (1) which provides that contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I B are to be awarded in accordance with Article 14 and Article 16, do such contracts in any case remain subject to the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, transparency and non-discrimination, pursuant to Article 43[EC], Article 49[EC] and Article 86[EC]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper construction of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, (1) which provides that contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I B are to be awarded in accordance with Article 14 and Article 16, do such contracts in any case remain subject to the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, transparency and non-discrimination, pursuant to Article 43[EC], Article 49[EC] and Article 86[EC]?

| 2. | If the first question should be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, be interpreted as applying likewise to contracts having as their object services listed in Annex I B of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question should be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, be interpreted as applying likewise to contracts having as their object services listed in Annex I B of the directive?

| 3. | Does Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, preclude the application of a national law that, for public contracts signed before Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) relating to services listed in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC was adopted, does not guarantee the opening up of public procurement to competition if the negotiated procedure is used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, preclude the application of a national law that, for public contracts signed before Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) relating to services listed in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC was adopted, does not guarantee the opening up of public procurement to competition if the negotiated procedure is used?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ

(Case C-68/17)

(2017/C 144/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IR

Respondent: JQ

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the church can determine with binding effect that an organisation such as the defendant in the present proceedings, where employees in managerial positions are required to act in good faith and with loyalty, shall differentiate between employees who belong to the church and those who belong to another church or to none at all? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the church can determine with binding effect that an organisation such as the defendant in the present proceedings, where employees in managerial positions are required to act in good faith and with loyalty, shall differentiate between employees who belong to the church and those who belong to another church or to none at all?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative:






  a) | Must the provision of national law, in this case Paragraph 9(2) of the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (General Law on equal treatment), according to which unequal treatment of this kind on the basis of the religious affiliation of employees is justified in accordance with the church’s self-concept, be disapplied in these proceedings? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

a)

Must the provision of national law, in this case Paragraph 9(2) of the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (General Law on equal treatment), according to which unequal treatment of this kind on the basis of the religious affiliation of employees is justified in accordance with the church’s self-concept, be disapplied in these proceedings?

| b) | What requirements apply, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, in respect of a requirement for employees of a church or one of the other organisations mentioned to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos? |
| --- | --- |

b)

What requirements apply, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, in respect of a requirement for employees of a church or one of the other organisations mentioned to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos?

---

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2017 — Gamesa Wind România S.R.L. v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-69/17)

(2017/C 144/35)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gamesa Wind România S.R.L.

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that the VAT in question relates to purchases made during a period in which the taxpayer’s VAT identification number was inoperative? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that the VAT in question relates to purchases made during a period in which the taxpayer’s VAT identification number was inoperative?

| 2. | Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that, although the VAT in question relates to invoices issued after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, it concerns purchases made during a period in which the VAT identification number was inoperative? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that, although the VAT in question relates to invoices issued after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, it concerns purchases made during a period in which the VAT identification number was inoperative?

---

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — Isabelle Walkner v APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-72/17)

(2017/C 144/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabelle Walkner

Defendant: APSB Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the notion of a controlling undertaking specified in the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) be understood to mean only an undertaking whose influence is ensured through shareholdings and voting rights or does a contractual or de facto influence (e.g. as a result of the power of natural persons to give instructions) suffice?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:
  Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:

Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
  Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Does the second subparagraph of Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC require the workers' representatives also to be informed of the economic or other grounds on which the controlling undertaking has taken its decisions that have led the employer to contemplate collective redundancies?

| 4. | Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with Article 2(4) in conjunction with Article 2(3)(a), Article 2(3)(b)(i) and Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC to place on workers pursuing a judicial process to assert the invalidity of their dismissal effected in the context of collective dismissals, on the basis that the employer effecting the dismissal did not properly consult the workers’ representatives, a burden of presenting the facts and adducing evidence that goes beyond presenting the indicia for a controlling influence?

| 5. | If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
  What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:

What further obligations to present facts and adduce evidence may be placed on the workers in the present case pursuant to the abovementioned provisions?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-77/17)

(2017/C 144/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred

| A. | Must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

| B. | If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation? |
| --- | --- |

B.

If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?

| C. | If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for refusing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

C.

If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for refusing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| D. | If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for refusing refugee status without any consideration of fear of persecution, as required by Article 1A of the Geneva Convention? |
| --- | --- |

D.

If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for refusing refugee status without any consideration of fear of persecution, as required by Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

| E. | If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention? |
| --- | --- |

E.

If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-78/17)

(2017/C 144/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred

| A. | Must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?

| B. | If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation? |
| --- | --- |

B.

If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?

| C. | If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for withdrawing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

C.

If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for withdrawing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| D. | If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for withdrawing refugee status for which no provision is made in the Geneva Convention, and for which no basis can be found in the Convention? |
| --- | --- |

D.

If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for withdrawing refugee status for which no provision is made in the Geneva Convention, and for which no basis can be found in the Convention?

| E. | If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention? |
| --- | --- |

E.

If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

(Case C-80/17)

(2017/C 144/39)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Motor Vehicle Guarantee Fund)

Defendants: Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 (1) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to the situations in which the vehicle is, at the owner’s choice, immobilised in a private courtyard, away from the public highway?
  or,
  In those circumstances, is the owner of the vehicle not under an obligation to insure, regardless of the liability of the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel to injured third parties, in particular in cases of the unlawful use of a motor vehicle belonging to another? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 (1) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to the situations in which the vehicle is, at the owner’s choice, immobilised in a private courtyard, away from the public highway?

or,

In those circumstances, is the owner of the vehicle not under an obligation to insure, regardless of the liability of the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel to injured third parties, in particular in cases of the unlawful use of a motor vehicle belonging to another?

| (2) | Must Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 (2) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel — which because there was no civil liability insurance contract, paid the relevant compensation to the third parties injured by the traffic accident caused by the motor vehicle which, without the owner’s knowledge or authorisation, was removed from the private land where it was immobilised — has the right of subrogation against the vehicle’s owner regardless of whether that owner was liable for the accident?
  or,
  Does the subrogation by the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel in relation to the owner depend on the requirements for civil liability having been met, in particular that, when the accident occurred, the owner had effective control of the vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Must Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 (2) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel — which because there was no civil liability insurance contract, paid the relevant compensation to the third parties injured by the traffic accident caused by the motor vehicle which, without the owner’s knowledge or authorisation, was removed from the private land where it was immobilised — has the right of subrogation against the vehicle’s owner regardless of whether that owner was liable for the accident?

or,

Does the subrogation by the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel in relation to the owner depend on the requirements for civil liability having been met, in particular that, when the accident occurred, the owner had effective control of the vehicle?

---

(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English special edition 1972(II) p. 360).

(2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 21 February 2017 — Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-90/17)

(2017/C 144/40)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbogás — Produtora Energética, SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| 1. | Pursuant to and for the purposes of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, (1) must entities which produce electricity for their own use be small producers in order for them to be ... regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, so that other entities (those which are not small producers) which produce electricity for their own use are excluded from that classification as distributors, or must all entities which produce electricity for their own use (regardless of their respective size and of whether they do so as their main or secondary economic activity), and are not exempt as small producers under the second sentence of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, be regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Pursuant to and for the purposes of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, (1) must entities which produce electricity for their own use be small producers in order for them to be ... regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, so that other entities (those which are not small producers) which produce electricity for their own use are excluded from that classification as distributors, or must all entities which produce electricity for their own use (regardless of their respective size and of whether they do so as their main or secondary economic activity), and are not exempt as small producers under the second sentence of the third paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive, be regarded as distributors, and [thus] subject to tax in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21(5) of that directive?

| 2. | In particular, may an entity, such as the one at issue in these proceedings, which is a large electricity producer, producing around 9 % of the national energy for sale to the national grid, be regarded as ‘an entity producing electricity for its own use’, as referred to in Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, when only a small part of the electricity which it produces is consumed in its own production of new electricity as an integral part of its production process? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, may an entity, such as the one at issue in these proceedings, which is a large electricity producer, producing around 9 % of the national energy for sale to the national grid, be regarded as ‘an entity producing electricity for its own use’, as referred to in Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96/EC, when only a small part of the electricity which it produces is consumed in its own production of new electricity as an integral part of its production process?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova

(Case C-105/17)

(2017/C 144/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite

Respondent: Evelina Kamenova

Question referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/ЕC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices be interpreted as meaning that the action of a natural person who is registered on a website for the sale of goods, and who published a total of eight advertisements at the same time for the sale of different items via the website, is the action of a trader within the meaning of the legal definition in Article 2(b), represents a business-to-consumer commercial practice within the meaning of Article 2(d) and comes within the scope of the directive pursuant to Article 3(1) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/ЕC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices be interpreted as meaning that the action of a natural person who is registered on a website for the sale of goods, and who published a total of eight advertisements at the same time for the sale of different items via the website, is the action of a trader within the meaning of the legal definition in Article 2(b), represents a business-to-consumer commercial practice within the meaning of Article 2(d) and comes within the scope of the directive pursuant to Article 3(1) thereof?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance).

OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ

(Case C-111/17 PPU)

(2017/C 144/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OL

Defendant: PQ

Question referred

What is the appropriate interpretation of the concept of ‘habitual residence’, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, in the case of an infant who fortuitously or due to force majeure has been born in a place other than that which her parents with joint parental responsibility for the child intended to be the place of her habitual residence, and was then unlawfully retained by one parent in the State where she was born, or removed to a third State. More specifically, is physical presence a necessary and self-evident prerequisite, in all circumstances, for establishing the habitual residence of a person, and in particular a new-born child?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/33

---

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-130/17)

(2017/C 144/43)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and I. Zalogin)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the establishment of a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric data in identity documents in accordance with Commission Decision С(2009) 7476 of 5 October 2009 amending Commission Decision C(2008) 8657 laying down a certificate policy as required in the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States and Commission Decision С(2011) 5478 of 4 August 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2002) 3069 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the establishment of a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric data in identity documents in accordance with Commission Decision С(2009) 7476 of 5 October 2009 amending Commission Decision C(2008) 8657 laying down a certificate policy as required in the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States and Commission Decision С(2011) 5478 of 4 August 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2002) 3069 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Bulgaria has failed to establish a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric information in identity documents and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned Commission decisions.

---

General Court

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-117/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States - Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission - Refusal of the request - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory measure - No new substantive particulars - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 144/44)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Naaber-Kivisoo and M.P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, then by P. Ondrůšek, assisted by M. Kärson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

(Case T-132/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark popchrono - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IR (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Malte Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2015 (Case R 217/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Mr IR.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr IR to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr IR to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Haswani v Council

(Case T-231/15) (1)

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Modification of the application - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 144/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, then by S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot, Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (PESC) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015, L 64, p. 41), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015, L 64, p. 10), of Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO 2015, L 132, p. 3), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 30), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Annuls, in so far as they concern Mr George Haswani, Council Implementing Decision (PESC) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls, in so far as they concern Mr George Haswani, Council Implementing Decision (PESC) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015, implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

| 3. | Dismisses the claim for damages brought by Mr Haswani. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claim for damages brought by Mr Haswani.

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs incurred in connection with the applications for annulment of Implementing Decision 2015/383, Implementing Regulation 2015/375, Decision 2015/837 and Implementing Regulation 2015/828 brought by Mr Haswani, one third of those costs incurred by Mr Haswani with regard to those applications. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs incurred in connection with the applications for annulment of Implementing Decision 2015/383, Implementing Regulation 2015/375, Decision 2015/837 and Implementing Regulation 2015/828 brought by Mr Haswani, one third of those costs incurred by Mr Haswani with regard to those applications.

| 5. | Orders Mr Haswani to pay, in addition to his own costs incurred in connection with the applications for annulment of Decision 2016/850 and Implementing Regulation 2016/840 and in connection with his claim for damages, two thirds of the costs incurred by the Council with regard to those applications. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Mr Haswani to pay, in addition to his own costs incurred in connection with the applications for annulment of Decision 2016/850 and Implementing Regulation 2016/840 and in connection with his claim for damages, two thirds of the costs incurred by the Council with regard to those applications.

| 6. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)

(Case T-239/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cryo-Save - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the mark - Burden of proof - Declaration of revocation))

(2017/C 144/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 2567/2013-4), concerning revocation proceedings between MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack and Cryo-Save.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Windrush Aka v EUIPO — Dammers (The Specials)

(Case T-336/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark The Specials - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and S. Britton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fehler, Solicitor, H. Cuddigan and B. Brandreth, Barristers).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 1412/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Windrush Aka and Mr Dammers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Windrush Aka LLP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Windrush Aka LLP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Capella v EUIPO — Abus (APUS)

(Case T-473/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark APUS - Earlier national word mark ABUS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Successive restrictions of the trade mark application before the Board of Appeal - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Competence of the Board of Appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 144/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG (Wetter, Germany) (represented by: G. Hallwachs, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2015 (Case R 117/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Abus August Bremicker Söhne and Capella.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2015 (Case R 117/2014-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2015 (Case R 117/2014-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Capella EOOD; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Capella EOOD;

| 3. | Declares that Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus v EUIPO — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

(Case T-495/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN - Earlier EU figurative mark monteCitrus - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain) (represented by: F. Perez Arnau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 871/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus and Spanish Oranges

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sociedad agraria de transformación No 9982 Montecitrus to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-174/16) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 144/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1652/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-175/16) (1)

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 144/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1725/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE)

(Case T-216/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LE VAL FRANCE - Earlier EU word mark VIÑA DEL VAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vignerons de la Méditerranée (Narbonne, France) (represented by: M. Karsenty-Ricard and M. Merli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL (Rueda, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2016 (Case R 427/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Grupo Yllera and Vignerons de la Méditerranée.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vignerons de la Méditerranée to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vignerons de la Méditerranée to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Hoffmann v EUIPO

(Case T-425/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Genius - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl Hoffmann (Bad Schwalbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2016 (Case R 1631/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Genius as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Karl Hoffmann to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Karl Hoffmann to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

(Case T-430/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BRENT INDEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 (Case R 8/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRENT INDEX as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — Fernández González v Commission

(Case T-455/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Employment of temporary staff in permanent posts - Plea of illegality - Error of law))

(2017/C 144/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Bersheid, Agents, and, initially, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, and subsequently A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016, Fernández González v Commission (F-121/15, EU:F:2016:128), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016, Fernández González v Commission (F-121/15, EU:F:2016:128); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016, Fernández González v Commission (F-121/15, EU:F:2016:128);

| 2. | Refers the case to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled on the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/42

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL)

(Case T-323/13) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL - Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 144/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pure Fishing (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1241/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Łabowicz and Pure Fishing.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/43

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)

(Case T-747/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 144/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1880/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Merck KGaA.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Merck KGaA and Société des Produits Nestlé SA are ordered to bear their own costs and to, each, bear half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Merck KGaA and Société des Produits Nestlé SA are ordered to bear their own costs and to, each, bear half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/43

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT)

(Case T-21/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2015 (Case R 223/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIKE IT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/44

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Gomes de Azevedo v ECB

(Case T-22/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Supervision of credit institutions - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering - Corrective measures - No invitation to act - Lack of precision in the application - Act not open to challenge - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2017/C 144/60)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Ribeiro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: A. Karpf, P. Ferreira Jorge and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the ECB illegally failed to take action against Portuguese credit institutions within the context of the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the act by which the ECB returned to the applicants the invitation to act which they had sent to it, and, thirdly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções, Lda, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/45

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA

(Case T-295/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA - Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 144/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SymbioPharm GmbH (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, I. Ratescu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU asking for annulment of the letter from the EMA of 1 April 2016 to initiate a referral procedure referred to in Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), concerning medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and similarly named medicinal products following a notification by the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 31 of that Directive.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | SymbioPharm GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SymbioPharm GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/45

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Popescu v Romania

(Case T-380/16)

((Manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2017/C 144/62)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Doina Popescu (Slatina, Romania) (represented by: M. Ispas, lawyer)

Defendant: Romania

Re:

Application seeking to obtain, first, the conviction of several Romanian national authorities for alleged criminal acts and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Doina Popescu shall bear her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Doina Popescu shall bear her own costs.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/46

---

Order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 — GX v Commission

(Case T-556/16) (1)

((Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 - Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2017/C 144/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 of 20 August 2014 not to include the applicant on the reserve list and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | GX shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

GX shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-89/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/46

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA

(Case T-625/16 R)

((Interim measures - European Chemicals Agency - REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Decision imposing an administrative charge and an additional fee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2017/C 144/64)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. (Grajewo, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: E. Maurage, J. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the granting of interim measures (i) suspending implementation of Decision No SME (2016) 2851 of 23 June 2016 which found that the applicant was not entitled to the fee reductions applicable to medium-sized enterprises and (ii) ordering the defendant to cancel the invoices issued on the basis of that decision, namely ECHA invoices No 10058238 and No 10058239 of 23 June 2016.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/47

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA

(Case T-855/16 R)

((Interim proceedings - REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings - Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2017/C 144/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, Agents, and C. Molyneux, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking a suspension of operation of Decision SME (2016) 5150, of 15 November 2016, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the fee reductions applicable to medium-sized undertakings, and of the invoices issued on the basis of that decision, namely ECHA invoices No 10060160 and No 10060161, dated 15 November 2016.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/47

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — ADDE v Parliament

(Case T-48/17 R)

((Interim measures - Financing of a political party - Institutional law - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency))

(2017/C 144/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering a waiver of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition of the prefinancing of the subsidy flowing from Parliament Decision FINS-2017-13 of 13 December 2016 on the financing granted to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/48

---

Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Eutelsat v GSA

(Case T-99/17)

(2017/C 144/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eutelsat SA (Paris, France) (represented by: L. de la Brosse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the application is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the application is admissible;

| — | grant the request for investigative measures put forward by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the request for investigative measures put forward by the applicant;

| — | annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system;

| — | order the defendant to bear the expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first, modified its candidature during the course of the procedure, in violation of (i) the Tender Specifications and (ii) of the principle of equality of treatment of the tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first, modified its candidature during the course of the procedure, in violation of (i) the Tender Specifications and (ii) of the principle of equality of treatment of the tenderers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that during the course of the procedure, GSA modified the contents of the financial criteria for the selection of the offers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that during the course of the procedure, GSA modified the contents of the financial criteria for the selection of the offers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the method used by GSA for ranking the price criteria did not enable the choice of the offer that was most economically advantageous. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the method used by GSA for ranking the price criteria did not enable the choice of the offer that was most economically advantageous.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the composition of the evaluation committee was not in accordance with the rules and its impartiality cannot be guaranteed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the composition of the evaluation committee was not in accordance with the rules and its impartiality cannot be guaranteed.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first submitted an abnormally low tender. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the tenderer ranked first submitted an abnormally low tender.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach to the rules of transparency and equality of treatment of the candidates, and an advantage in contradiction to the rules concerning conflicts of interest. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach to the rules of transparency and equality of treatment of the candidates, and an advantage in contradiction to the rules concerning conflicts of interest.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the GSA made a number of errors concerning the Qualitative Award Criteria. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the GSA made a number of errors concerning the Qualitative Award Criteria.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the GSA disregarded its obligation to give sufficient reasons for the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the GSA disregarded its obligation to give sufficient reasons for the contested decisions.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the value of the contract is much lower than the total value stated in the contract award notice published by GSA and the BAFO of Eutelsat. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the value of the contract is much lower than the total value stated in the contract award notice published by GSA and the BAFO of Eutelsat.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/49

---

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17)

(2017/C 144/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the decision confirming a decision refusing access to the documents sought by Hércules CF, in relation to certain documents in the administrative file that led to the adoption of Decision C(2016) 4060 final of 4 July 2016 on the State Aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 4).






  — | The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 4).

—

The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.






  — | The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

—

The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that, ultimately, the Commission is required to offer at least partial access to the requested information. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that, ultimately, the Commission is required to offer at least partial access to the requested information.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/50

---

Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission

(Case T-135/17)

(2017/C 144/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final;

| — | order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:






  — | first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:

—

first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test;

| — | second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature. |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/51

---

Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission

(Case T-137/17)

(2017/C 144/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected;

| — | Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled;

| — | Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought in essence against the decisions of 25 November 2016 and [2] May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature for the EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5 competition, was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for admissions as regards the education requirements.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016.






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that a number of indications show that it is not possible that the decision of 2 May 2016 was taken by the selection board. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that a number of indications show that it is not possible that the decision of 2 May 2016 was taken by the selection board.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel.






  — | The applicant asserts that the administration gave precise assurances as regards the competition for which she had previously applied, namely competition EPSO/AD/172/09, that competition having the same admission criteria as competition EPSO? AD/177/10. In competition EPSO/AD/172/09 the selection board concluded that the applicant meets the conditions required as regards experience/professional training. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel.

—

The applicant asserts that the administration gave precise assurances as regards the competition for which she had previously applied, namely competition EPSO/AD/172/09, that competition having the same admission criteria as competition EPSO? AD/177/10. In competition EPSO/AD/172/09 the selection board concluded that the applicant meets the conditions required as regards experience/professional training.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case.






  — | The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear from the diplomas produced that she has a level of university education equal to a full cycle of at least three years, attested by a diploma relevant to the nature of the competition duties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case.

—

The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear from the diplomas produced that she has a level of university education equal to a full cycle of at least three years, attested by a diploma relevant to the nature of the competition duties.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and lack of proportionality.






  — | The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear that the applicant’s candidature was not rejected on the basis of considerations connected with her qualification and diplomas, but on a question of general foreign policy for the purposes covered by the recruitment. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and lack of proportionality.

—

The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear that the applicant’s candidature was not rejected on the basis of considerations connected with her qualification and diplomas, but on a question of general foreign policy for the purposes covered by the recruitment.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/52

---

Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

(Case T-148/17)

(2017/C 144/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 in so far as it maintains the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016 to recover the amount of EUR 56 554 from Ms Mylène Troszczynski; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 in so far as it maintains the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016 to recover the amount of EUR 56 554 from Ms Mylène Troszczynski;

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 taken pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, establishing that the applicant had a debt in the amount of EUR 56 544 in respect of amounts unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, giving reasons for its recovery and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accounting officer, to proceed with the recovery of those amounts pursuant to Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 taken pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, establishing that the applicant had a debt in the amount of EUR 56 544 in respect of amounts unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, giving reasons for its recovery and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accounting officer, to proceed with the recovery of those amounts pursuant to Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | annul debit note No 2016-888, undated, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016, for recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 2016-888, undated, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016, for recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

| — | annul the debit note of 29 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the debit note of 29 June 2016;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay Ms Mylène Trosczcynski the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay Ms Mylène Trosczcynski the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The sums which are the subject of the present dispute relate to the employment contract of indefinite duration concluded between the applicant and a local assistant working as a full-time parliamentary assistant in the Member State in which the applicant was elected. The defendant questions, on the basis of certain evidence concerning the posts held by the local assistant within the political party to which the applicant belongs, whether the applicant complied with the obligations under Articles 33, 43 and 62 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament.

In support of the action, the applicant argues that, in the present case, the contested measures are vitiated by defects affecting their external legality relating, in particular, to the lack of competence ratione materiae of the author of the act, the failure to state reasons and the failure to comply with essential procedural requirements.

She also claims that the internal legality of the contested measures is vitiated by defects relating to the non-existence of the facts alleged, the determination of the party who bears the burden of proof, infringement of the principle of proportionality, interference with the political rights of local assistants, misuse of powers, the discriminatory nature of the disputed measures and the existence of fumus persecutionis, infringement of the independence of parliamentary representatives, the prohibition of any imperative mandate, infringement of the principles of una via electa and non bis in idem, in so far as the President of the European Parliament forwarded to OLAF factual material leading to the presumption that the alleged irregularities concerning the applicant had occurred.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/53

---

Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission

(Case T-152/17)

(2017/C 144/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the refusal of 10 January 2017 by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Commission, notified on 17 January 2017, to grant the applicant access to any submissions filed by any of the parties in ongoing infringement proceedings regarding an alleged violation by Ireland of the Working Time Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the refusal of 10 January 2017 by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Commission, notified on 17 January 2017, to grant the applicant access to any submissions filed by any of the parties in ongoing infringement proceedings regarding an alleged violation by Ireland of the Working Time Directive.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to conduct a concrete assessment of the request of access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to conduct a concrete assessment of the request of access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful reliance on a general presumption, in breach of the principles identified in the case-law cited. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful reliance on a general presumption, in breach of the principles identified in the case-law cited.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document concerned, in breach of the case-law cited. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document concerned, in breach of the case-law cited.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging failure to proceed to a specific and effective examination of potential partial access, in breach of the case-law cited. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging failure to proceed to a specific and effective examination of potential partial access, in breach of the case-law cited.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law cited. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law cited.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/54

---

Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB

(Case T-158/17)

(2017/C 144/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Post Telecom SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, C. Saettel and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) contained in its letter of 6 January 2011, notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted in the context of call for tenders OP-1305 entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) contained in its letter of 6 January 2011, notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted in the context of call for tenders OP-1305 entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer;

| — | by way of one of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, or otherwise one of the measures of inquiry provided for in Article 91 of those rules, request the EIB to specify whether it has had any contact whatsoever with TELINDUS regarding the procurement procedure — whether before or after the submission of tenders — inter alia for the purposes of obtaining additional explanations as to its technical solution and, if appropriate, order it to produce every document exchanged in that regard; and order the production of every document from the procurement dossier in which the contacts that took place between the EIB and TELINDUS SA regarding the procurement dossier — whether before or after the submission of tenders — were recorded; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of one of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, or otherwise one of the measures of inquiry provided for in Article 91 of those rules, request the EIB to specify whether it has had any contact whatsoever with TELINDUS regarding the procurement procedure — whether before or after the submission of tenders — inter alia for the purposes of obtaining additional explanations as to its technical solution and, if appropriate, order it to produce every document exchanged in that regard; and order the production of every document from the procurement dossier in which the contacts that took place between the EIB and TELINDUS SA regarding the procurement dossier — whether before or after the submission of tenders — were recorded;

| — | order the European Investment Bank to pay to it damages of EUR 1 247 415,60 in respect of non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Investment Bank to pay to it damages of EUR 1 247 415,60 in respect of non-contractual liability;

| — | order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of transparency, in relation to the method of assessment provided for in the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of transparency, in relation to the method of assessment provided for in the tender specifications.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons, or insufficient reasoning, so far as concerns, first, the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and, second, the appraisal of the bid submitted by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons, or insufficient reasoning, so far as concerns, first, the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and, second, the appraisal of the bid submitted by the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, disregard of the provisions of the tender specifications and infringement of the principle of equal treatment committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and in particular the evaluation of its bid under technical criterion No 1. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, disregard of the provisions of the tender specifications and infringement of the principle of equal treatment committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and in particular the evaluation of its bid under technical criterion No 1.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a substantive error, a manifest error of assessment, failure to comply with the tender specifications, infringement of the principle of proportionality and equal treatment and a misuse of powers allegedly committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the applicant’s tender. This plea is divided into two parts:






  — | first part, alleging an error in the substantive findings of fact, or a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the tender specifications, a misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a substantive error, a manifest error of assessment, failure to comply with the tender specifications, infringement of the principle of proportionality and equal treatment and a misuse of powers allegedly committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the applicant’s tender. This plea is divided into two parts:

—

first part, alleging an error in the substantive findings of fact, or a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the tender specifications, a misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of proportionality;

| — | second part, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/55

---

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission

(Case T-160/17)

(2017/C 144/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:

| — | The decision of 27 April 2016 of the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General (DG HR) terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff concluded for an indefinite period under Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of 27 April 2016 of the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General (DG HR) terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff concluded for an indefinite period under Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS is annulled;

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

—

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the applicant to be heard before the adoption of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, it was adopted in breach of the obligation to state reasons and, more exactly, of the right of the applicant to be informed of all the objective complaints which underlie the contested decision and, in particular, the reasons for an alleged breakdown in the relationship of trust.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/55

---

Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v EUIPO — Pink Lady America (WILD PINK)

(Case T-164/17)

(2017/C 144/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia), Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pink Lady America (Yakima, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WILD PINK’ — Application for registration No 11 701 216

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 87/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicants before the Office’s Fourth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicants before the Office’s Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and the rights of defense; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and the rights of defense;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU, |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU,

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or of Article 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or of Article 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/56

---

Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission

(Case T-167/17)

(2017/C 144/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 21 December 2016 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and to retire the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 21 December 2016 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and to retire the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and that an unrestricted delegation of the powers of the appointing authority to apply Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful. It is also alleged that there has been infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and that an unrestricted delegation of the powers of the appointing authority to apply Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful. It is also alleged that there has been infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff. It is also alleged that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff. It is also alleged that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the present case.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/57

---

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

(Case T-171/17)

(2017/C 144/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Québec, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘KIMIKA’ — Application for registration No 13 233 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 in Case R 1206/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the applicant is admissible and well founded; and consequently |
| --- | --- |

—

recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the applicant is admissible and well founded; and consequently

| — | reform the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reform the contested decision;

| — | send the case back to EUIPO for a reforming decision and therefore give way to a definitive registration of the EU trade mark No 13 233 391 even in the classes contested; |
| --- | --- |

—

send the case back to EUIPO for a reforming decision and therefore give way to a definitive registration of the EU trade mark No 13 233 391 even in the classes contested;

| — | condemn the counterpart to pay fees and costs of the three proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the counterpart to pay fees and costs of the three proceeding.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred when it assessed the risk of confusion between the trade marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred when it assessed the risk of confusion between the trade marks.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/58

---

Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

(Case T-176/17)

(2017/C 144/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sequel Naturals ULC (Port Coquilam, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: H. Lindström, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carlos Fernandes (Gross-Umstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VeGa one’ — Application for registration No 12 649 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 2466/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/58

---

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

(Case T-178/17)

(2017/C 144/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HYALSTYLE’ — EU trade mark No 11 645 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 in Case R 872/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/59

---

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)

(Case T-179/17)

(2017/C 144/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain), Jean Yves Tariot (Alicante, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NYOUX’ — Application for registration No 12 931 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 in Case R 718/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

(Case T-335/12) (1)

(2017/C 144/81)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission

(Case T-527/12) (1)

(2017/C 144/82)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

(Case T-225/13) (1)

(2017/C 144/83)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

(Case T-411/13) (1)

(2017/C 144/84)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/60

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-554/13) (1)

(2017/C 144/85)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-13/14) (1)

(2017/C 144/86)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Associated Newspapers (METRO)

(Case T-697/14) (1)

(2017/C 144/87)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-150/15) (1)

(2017/C 144/88)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-151/15) (1)

(2017/C 144/89)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-174/15) (1)

(2017/C 144/90)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)

(Case T-432/15) (1)

(2017/C 144/91)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

(Case T-117/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/92)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

(Case T-173/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/93)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

(Case T-252/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/94)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)

(Case T-253/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/95)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/63

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

(Case T-356/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/96)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/63

---

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

(Case T-384/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/97)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/63

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Perifereia Stereas Elladas v Commission

(Case T-731/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/98)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/63

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

(Case T-896/16) (1)

(2017/C 144/99)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

---