# Official Journal C 70/6 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 70 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 606 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 70

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 606 March 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 70/01 | 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 70/01

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 70/02 | Case C-189/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Tax reductions — Substantive scope — Incentives in respect of the amounts covering general electricity charges — Article 17 — Energy-intensive businesses — Incentives granted to such businesses in the manufacturing sector alone — Lawfulness) | 2 |
| 2017/C 70/03 | Case C-282/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34 to 36 TFEU — Purely domestic situation — Food safety — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 6 — Principle of risk analysis — Article 7 — Precautionary principle — Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 — Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids — Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority) | 3 |
| 2017/C 70/04 | Case C-344/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1), second subparagraph — Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll — Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority — Presence of private operators — Significant distortions of competition — Existence of actual or potential competition) | 3 |
| 2017/C 70/05 | Case C-351/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct — Payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union — Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest — Action for annulment — Challengeable acts — Effective judicial protection) | 4 |
| 2017/C 70/06 | Case C-365/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Reimbursement of import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) — Article 241, first paragraph, first indent — Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts) | 5 |
| 2017/C 70/07 | Case C-427/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right — Right of information — Request for information in proceedings — Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found) | 5 |
| 2017/C 70/08 | Case C-460/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Monitoring plan — Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 — Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV — Calculation of the emissions of an installation — Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred — Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate — Legality of the exclusion) | 6 |
| 2017/C 70/09 | Case C-471/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for taxing the profit margin — Concept of second-hand goods — Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles) | 6 |
| 2017/C 70/10 | Case C-623/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. 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 — Concept of economic unit between two companies — Concept of decisive influence — Joint control by two parent companies — Distortion of evidence) | 7 |
| 2017/C 70/11 | Case C-37/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable transactions — Concept of supply of services for consideration — Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights — Not included) | 7 |
| 2017/C 70/12 | Case C-450/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 8 |
| 2017/C 70/13 | Case C-627/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 5 December 2016 — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial | 8 |
| 2017/C 70/14 | Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission | 9 |
| 2017/C 70/15 | Case C-641/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France | 10 |
| 2017/C 70/16 | Case C-645/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL | 10 |
| 2017/C 70/17 | Case C-647/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais | 11 |
| 2017/C 70/18 | Case C-668/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany | 11 |
| 2017/C 70/19 | Case C-682/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 30 December 2016 — BEI ApS v Skatteministeriet | 12 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 70/20 | Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)) | 15 |
| 2017/C 70/21 | Case T-768/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Pocemon project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest) | 15 |
| 2017/C 70/22 | Case T-771/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Doc@Hand project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest) | 16 |
| 2017/C 70/23 | Case T-325/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 17 |
| 2017/C 70/24 | Case T-719/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Implied rejection decision — Decision rejecting the complaint — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff) | 17 |
| 2017/C 70/25 | Case T-727/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017 — Justice & Environment v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest — Aarhus Convention — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) | 18 |
| 2017/C 70/26 | Case T-749/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Programme for purchasing securities — Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral — Private creditors — Commercial banks — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment) | 19 |
| 2017/C 70/27 | Case T-96/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 19 |
| 2017/C 70/28 | Case T-187/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LITU — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2017/C 70/29 | Case T-242/15: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — ACDA and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Extension of concession contracts — Motorway investment plan in France — Decision not to raise any objections — Association — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility) | 21 |
| 2017/C 70/30 | Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission | 21 |
| 2017/C 70/31 | Case T-664/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) | 22 |
| 2017/C 70/32 | Case T-919/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament | 23 |
| 2017/C 70/33 | Case T-9/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council | 24 |
| 2017/C 70/34 | Case T-17/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament | 24 |
| 2017/C 70/35 | Case T-18/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission | 25 |
| 2017/C 70/36 | Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission | 26 |
| 2017/C 70/37 | Case T-26/17: Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament | 28 |
| 2017/C 70/38 | Case T-27/17: Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament | 29 |
| 2017/C 70/39 | Case T-35/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill) | 30 |
| 2017/C 70/40 | Case T-36/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB) | 31 |
| 2017/C 70/41 | Case T-557/16: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — Belis v Commission | 31 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 70/02

Case C-189/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Tax reductions — Substantive scope — Incentives in respect of the amounts covering general electricity charges — Article 17 — Energy-intensive businesses — Incentives granted to such businesses in the manufacturing sector alone — Lawfulness)

2

2017/C 70/03

Case C-282/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34 to 36 TFEU — Purely domestic situation — Food safety — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 6 — Principle of risk analysis — Article 7 — Precautionary principle — Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 — Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids — Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority)

3

2017/C 70/04

Case C-344/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 13(1), second subparagraph — Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll — Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority — Presence of private operators — Significant distortions of competition — Existence of actual or potential competition)

3

2017/C 70/05

Case C-351/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Fines — Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct — Payment of the fine by the subsidiary — Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union — Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest — Action for annulment — Challengeable acts — Effective judicial protection)

4

2017/C 70/06

Case C-365/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Reimbursement of import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) — Article 241, first paragraph, first indent — Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts)

5

2017/C 70/07

Case C-427/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right — Right of information — Request for information in proceedings — Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found)

5

2017/C 70/08

Case C-460/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Monitoring plan — Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 — Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV — Calculation of the emissions of an installation — Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred — Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate — Legality of the exclusion)

6

2017/C 70/09

Case C-471/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for taxing the profit margin — Concept of second-hand goods — Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles)

6

2017/C 70/10

Case C-623/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. 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 — Concept of economic unit between two companies — Concept of decisive influence — Joint control by two parent companies — Distortion of evidence)

7

2017/C 70/11

Case C-37/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable transactions — Concept of supply of services for consideration — Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights — Not included)

7

2017/C 70/12

Case C-450/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office

U-R LAB

European Union Intellectual Property Office

8

2017/C 70/13

Case C-627/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 5 December 2016 — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

8

2017/C 70/14

Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission

9

2017/C 70/15

Case C-641/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France

10

2017/C 70/16

Case C-645/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

10

2017/C 70/17

Case C-647/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

11

2017/C 70/18

Case C-668/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

11

2017/C 70/19

Case C-682/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 30 December 2016 — BEI ApS v Skatteministeriet

12

General Court

2017/C 70/20

Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

15

2017/C 70/21

Case T-768/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Pocemon project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)

15

2017/C 70/22

Case T-771/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Doc@Hand project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)

16

2017/C 70/23

Case T-325/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

17

2017/C 70/24

Case T-719/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Implied rejection decision — Decision rejecting the complaint — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

17

2017/C 70/25

Case T-727/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017 — Justice & Environment v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption — Overriding public interest — Aarhus Convention — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)

18

2017/C 70/26

Case T-749/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — ECB — National central banks — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Programme for purchasing securities — Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral — Private creditors — Commercial banks — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

19

2017/C 70/27

Case T-96/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

19

2017/C 70/28

Case T-187/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LITU — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

20

2017/C 70/29

Case T-242/15: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — ACDA and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Extension of concession contracts — Motorway investment plan in France — Decision not to raise any objections — Association — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

21

2017/C 70/30

Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

21

2017/C 70/31

Case T-664/16: Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

22

2017/C 70/32

Case T-919/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament

23

2017/C 70/33

Case T-9/17: Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council

24

2017/C 70/34

Case T-17/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament

24

2017/C 70/35

Case T-18/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

25

2017/C 70/36

Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission

26

2017/C 70/37

Case T-26/17: Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament

28

2017/C 70/38

Case T-27/17: Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament

29

2017/C 70/39

Case T-35/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

30

2017/C 70/40

Case T-36/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)

31

2017/C 70/41

Case T-557/16: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — Belis v Commission

31

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2017/C 70/42 | Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case C-561/16 ( OJ C 22, 23.1.2017 ) | 32 |

Corrigenda

2017/C 70/42

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case C-561/16 ( OJ C 22, 23.1.2017 )

( OJ C 22, 23.1.2017 )

32

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/1

---

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

(2017/C 070/01)

Last publication

OJ C 63, 27.2.2017

Past publications

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017

OJ C 38, 6.2.2017

OJ C 30, 30.1.2017

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017

OJ C 14, 16.1.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others

(Case C-189/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Tax reductions - Substantive scope - Incentives in respect of the amounts covering general electricity charges - Article 17 - Energy-intensive businesses - Incentives granted to such businesses in the manufacturing sector alone - Lawfulness))

(2017/C 070/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia

Defendant: Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

Intervening party: 2M SpA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘tax reductions’ covers the incentives granted, under national law, to energy-intensive businesses, as defined in that provision, in respect of amounts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, covering general electricity charges, subject to verification by the referring court of the facts and the rules of national law on which this answer from the Court is based. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘tax reductions’ covers the incentives granted, under national law, to energy-intensive businesses, as defined in that provision, in respect of amounts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, covering general electricity charges, subject to verification by the referring court of the facts and the rules of national law on which this answer from the Court is based.

| 2. | Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which provide for tax reductions on the consumption of electricity in favour of energy-intensive businesses, within the meaning of that provision, in the manufacturing sector alone. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which provide for tax reductions on the consumption of electricity in favour of energy-intensive businesses, within the meaning of that provision, in the manufacturing sector alone.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-282/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 to 36 TFEU - Purely domestic situation - Food safety - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 6 - Principle of risk analysis - Article 7 - Precautionary principle - Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 - Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids - Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority))

(2017/C 070/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the manufacture, processing or marketing of any food supplement containing amino acids, unless a derogation has been issued by a national authority with discretion in that respect, where that legislation is based on a risk analysis which concerns only certain amino acids, which it is for the referring court to verify. In any event, those articles must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation, where that legislation lays down that the derogations to the prohibition covered by it may only be granted for a specific period even in cases where the safety of a substance is established.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 C 294, p. 30.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Appeal Commissioners — Ireland) — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-344/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1), second subparagraph - Activity of managing road infrastructure and making it available on payment of a toll - Activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority - Presence of private operators - Significant distortions of competition - Existence of actual or potential competition))

(2017/C 070/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Appeal Commissioners

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: National Roads Authority

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such that in the main proceedings, a body governed by public law which carries on an activity consisting in providing access to a road on payment of a toll may not be regarded as competing with private operators who collect tolls on other toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public law body concerned under national statutory provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 — European Commission v Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA

(Case C-351/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the latter’s unlawful conduct - Payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the amount of the subsidiary’s fine following a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Letters from the accountant of the European Commission demanding payment by the parent companies of the amount it repaid to the subsidiary plus default interest - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Effective judicial protection))

(2017/C 070/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Perrin, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA;

| 3. | Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-365/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Reimbursement of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) - Article 241, first paragraph, first indent - Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts))

(2017/C 070/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Where import duties, including anti-dumping duties, are reimbursed on the ground that they have been levied in breach of EU law, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, there is an obligation on Member States, arising from EU law, to pay to individuals with a right to reimbursement the corresponding interest which runs from the date of payment by those individuals of the duties reimbursed.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — NEW WAVE CZ, a.s. v ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.

(Case C-427/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right - Right of information - Request for information in proceedings - Proceedings linked to the action in which an infringement of an intellectual property right has been found))

(2017/C 070/07)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NEW WAVE CZ, a.s.

Defendant: ALLTOYS, spol. s r. o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was held that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-460/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Monitoring plan - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Article 49(1) and point 10 of Annex IV - Calculation of the emissions of an installation - Subtraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred - Exclusion of CO2 used in the production of precipitated calcium carbonate - Legality of the exclusion))

(2017/C 070/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and point 10(B) of Annex IV to that regulation are invalid in so far as they systematically include the carbon dioxide (CO2) transferred to another installation for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate in the emissions of the lime combustion installation, regardless of whether or not that CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-471/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for taxing the profit margin - Concept of ‘second-hand goods’ - Sales of parts removed from end-of-life vehicles))

(2017/C 070/09)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that used parts, from end-of-life motor vehicles purchased by a vehicle reuse undertaking from a private individual, intended to be sold as spare parts, constitute ‘second-hand goods’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that the supplies of such parts, effected by a taxable dealer, are subject to the application of the profit margin scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-623/15 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 - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Joint control by two parent companies - Distortion of evidence))

(2017/C 070/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)

(Case C-37/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Taxable transactions - Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ - Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights - Not included))

(2017/C 070/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)

Intervening parties: Prokuratura Generalna, Stowarzyszenie Zbiorowego Zarządzania Prawami Autorskimi Twórców Dzieł Naukowych i Technicznych Kopipol, Stowarzyszenie Autorów i Wydawców Copyright Polska

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that holders of reproduction rights do not make a supply of services, within the meaning of that directive, to producers and importers of blank media and of recording and reproduction devices on whom organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights levy on behalf of those rightholders, but in their own name, fees in respect of the sale of those devices and media.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/8

---

Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-450/16 P)

(2017/C 070/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: U-R LAB (represented by: A. Rudoni, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 25 November 2016 the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 5 December 2016 — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

(Case C-627/16)

(2017/C 070/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: João Ventura Ramos

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial

Question referred

| 1. | Is a time-limit applicable to an application for payment of outstanding wage claims by the guarantee institution more favourable to employees, within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, when the payment of such claims is only guaranteed where the application for payment is brought before the guarantee institution no later than one year from the day following that on which the contract of employment was terminated or where the time-limit is calculated from the date on which insolvency proceedings are brought, bearing in mind that the guarantee institution only guarantees the payment of the employee’s claims which have fallen due in the six months prior to those proceedings being brought? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a time-limit applicable to an application for payment of outstanding wage claims by the guarantee institution more favourable to employees, within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, when the payment of such claims is only guaranteed where the application for payment is brought before the guarantee institution no later than one year from the day following that on which the contract of employment was terminated or where the time-limit is calculated from the date on which insolvency proceedings are brought, bearing in mind that the guarantee institution only guarantees the payment of the employee’s claims which have fallen due in the six months prior to those proceedings being brought?

| 2. | If an employee has failed to comply with the time-limit for reasons for which he is not responsible, must the laws of the Member States, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, provide for an additional time-limit for submitting his application, provided that the employee shows that he is not responsible for the failure to comply with the time-limit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If an employee has failed to comply with the time-limit for reasons for which he is not responsible, must the laws of the Member States, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, provide for an additional time-limit for submitting his application, provided that the employee shows that he is not responsible for the failure to comply with the time-limit?

---

(1)  OJ 2008, L 283, p. 36.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/9

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission

(Case C-635/16 P)

(2017/C 070/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by finding that the action is inadmissible, given that it is directed against the Commission, who is not the author of the contested act;

The General Court erred in law by finding that the action was inadmissible because the contested act is merely provisional in nature and therefore is not a definitive act;

The General Court erred in law by rejecting Spliethoff’s request to treat its action for annulment as if it were directed against the 31 July Decision (1).

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 December 2016 — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France

(Case C-641/16)

(2017/C 070/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

Defendant: Expert France

Question referred

Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court which opened insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction over an action seeking to establish liability by which the assignee of part of a business acquired in the course of those insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as the exclusive distributor or the goods manufactured by the debtor?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

(Case C-645/16)

(2017/C 070/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Question referred

Does Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) apply where termination of the commercial agency contract occurs during the trial period provided for in that contract?

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-647/16)

(2017/C 070/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lille

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adil Hassan

Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (1) preclude the competent authorities of the Member State which has submitted, to a Member State which it, by application of the criteria set out in the Regulation, considers to be the State responsible, a request to take charge or take back a third-country national or a stateless person who has submitted an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken, or another person referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) of the Regulation, from taking a transfer decision and notifying it to the person concerned before the requested State has accepted that request to take charge or to take the person back?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

---

Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-668/16)

(2017/C 070/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, A.C. Becker, D. Kukovec, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that:






  — | by failing to take the measures necessary to restore the conformity of vehicles of types 246, 176 and 117 with their approved types (Articles 12 and 30 of the Framework Directive); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that:

—

by failing to take the measures necessary to restore the conformity of vehicles of types 246, 176 and 117 with their approved types (Articles 12 and 30 of the Framework Directive);

| — | by failing to take the measures necessary to implement penalties (Article 46, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 18, of the Framework Directive); and |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to take the measures necessary to implement penalties (Article 46, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 18, of the Framework Directive); and

| — | by upholding on 17 May 2013 an application by Daimler AG for extension of the existing vehicle type 245G to vehicles for which a different type-approval had been granted previously, to which the new requirements of the MAC Directive are applicable, and thereby circumventing the MAC Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

by upholding on 17 May 2013 an application by Daimler AG for extension of the existing vehicle type 245G to vehicles for which a different type-approval had been granted previously, to which the new requirements of the MAC Directive are applicable, and thereby circumventing the MAC Directive;

the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/40/EC (1) (MAC Directive) and Directive 2007/46/EC (2) (Framework Directive),

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 12 of and Annex X to the Framework Directive, Member States are required, in the event of non-conformity of production, to take the measures necessary to ensure that production vehicles conform to the approved type. Under Article 30 of the Framework Directive, the necessary measures are also to be taken to restore conformity where new vehicles deviate from approved types. The production and completed new vehicles of some of Daimler AG’s vehicle types have deviated from their approved type with regard to the use of a certain refrigerant. The German authorities did not take the measures necessary to restore conformity, contrary to Articles 12 and 30 of the Framework Directive.

Furthermore, the German authorities infringed Article 46 of the Framework Directive insofar as they imposed no penalties in respect of Daimler AG’s infringements of Article 5(1) and Article 18 of the Framework Directive.

Lastly, the German authorities circumvented the MAC Directive in an impermissible way by extending an earlier vehicle type to the abovementioned vehicle types.

---

(1)  Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, OJ 2006 L 161, p. 12.

(2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 30 December 2016 — BEI ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-682/16)

(2017/C 070/19)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BEI ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?






  1.1. | Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?

1.1.

Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention?

| 1.2. | If Question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

If Question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)?

| 1.3. | If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, is it then a condition for deeming a company not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC that there actually has been a channelling of funds to those persons who are deemed by the State in which the interest payer is resident to be ‘the beneficial owners’ of the interest in question, and — if so — is it then a further condition that the actual passing take place at a point close in time to the payment of the interest and/or take place as a payment of interest?






  1.3.1. | Of what significance is it in that connection if equity capital is used for the loan, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has paid tax on the interest received to the State where the interest payer is resident, if the interest recipient has subsequently made an intra-group transfer to its parent company resident in the same State with a view to adjusting earnings for tax purposes under the prevailing rules in the State in question, if the interest in question is subsequently converted into equity in the borrowing company, and if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.3.

If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, is it then a condition for deeming a company not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC that there actually has been a channelling of funds to those persons who are deemed by the State in which the interest payer is resident to be ‘the beneficial owners’ of the interest in question, and — if so — is it then a further condition that the actual passing take place at a point close in time to the payment of the interest and/or take place as a payment of interest?

1.3.1.

Of what significance is it in that connection if equity capital is used for the loan, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has paid tax on the interest received to the State where the interest payer is resident, if the interest recipient has subsequently made an intra-group transfer to its parent company resident in the same State with a view to adjusting earnings for tax purposes under the prevailing rules in the State in question, if the interest in question is subsequently converted into equity in the borrowing company, and if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person?

| 1.4. | What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention? |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

| 2. | Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or of Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?






  2.1. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or of Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?

2.1.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive?

| 3. | Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with the OECD Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with the OECD Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive?

| 4. | Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company, bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company, bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49).

---

General Court

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)

(Case T-258/08) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Diacor - Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)))

(2017/C 070/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: U. Vogt, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Portela & Ca., SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-768/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Pocemon project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))

(2017/C 070/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 216088 to fund the project entitled ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %; |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

| 3. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-771/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Doc@Hand project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))

(2017/C 070/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 508015 to fund the project entitled ‘Knowledge Sharing and Decision Support for Healthcare Professionals’, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 296 149,77, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %; |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 296 149,77, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

| 3. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)

(Case T-325/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Budapest)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1369/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató and Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol

(Case T-719/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Implied rejection decision - Decision rejecting the complaint - Duty to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff))

(2017/C 070/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LP (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential]
   (2), and seeking annulment of that order.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders LP to bear his/her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office (Europol) in the present instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LP to bear his/her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office (Europol) in the present instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

(2)  Confidential information hidden.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2017 — Justice & Environment v Commission

(Case T-727/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Overriding public interest - Aarhus Convention - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms))

(2017/C 070/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the initial Commission decision of 19 August 2015 and the confirmatory Commission decision of 15 October 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents contained in the file of the infringement procedure 2008/2186 against the Czech Republic and regarding the application of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Association Justice & Environment, z.s., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Association Justice & Environment, z.s., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB

(Case T-749/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Programme for purchasing securities - Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral - Private creditors - Commercial banks - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 070/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS (Paris, France) and Banque d’escompte (Paris) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: O. Heinz, G. Varhelyi and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicants following, in particular, the adoption of ECB Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19) and also of other ECB measures linked to the restructuring of the Greek public debt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS and Banque d’escompte to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS and Banque d’escompte to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

(Case T-96/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 (Case R 613/2015-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Solenis Technologies LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Solenis Technologies LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)

(Case T-187/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LITU - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 (Case R 719/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik and Viña y Bodega Botalcura.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/21

---

Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — ACDA and Others v Commission

(Case T-242/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Extension of concession contracts - Motorway investment plan in France - Decision not to raise any objections - Association - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 070/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Automobile club des avocats (ACDA) (Paris, France), Organisation des transporteurs routiers européens (OTRE) (Bordeaux, France), Fédération française des motards en colère (FFMC) (Paris), Fédération française de motocyclisme (Paris), Union nationale des automobile clubs (Paris) (represented by: M. Lesage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7850 final of 28 October 2014 on State aid SA.2014/N 38271 — France — Motorway investment plan.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the French Republic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the French Republic.

| 3. | The Automobile club des avocats (ACDA), the Organisation des transporteurs routiers européens (OTRE), the Fédération française des motards en colère (FFMC), the Fédération française de motocyclisme and the Union nationale des automobile clubs shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Automobile club des avocats (ACDA), the Organisation des transporteurs routiers européens (OTRE), the Fédération française des motards en colère (FFMC), the Fédération française de motocyclisme and the Union nationale des automobile clubs shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The French Republic shall bear its own costs in relation to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic shall bear its own costs in relation to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/21

---

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

(Case T-435/16)

(2017/C 070/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

as a result,

| — | annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016;

| — | order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and, in particular, of Articles 8, 13 and 20 thereof. The applicant also alleges infringement of the fundamental right of access to personal data and of the right to respect for private life, as well as infringement of the principles of the rights of the defence, equality of arms and the right to good administration. In addition, it argues that the contested decision is vitiated by an unlawful and unfounded statement of reasons. All those illegalities constitute as many instances of misconduct which have caused the applicant real and certain harm.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/22

---

Action brought on 14 September 2016 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

(Case T-664/16)

(2017/C 070/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: PJ (represented by: B. Schürmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Erdmann & Rossi’ — EU trade mark No 10 310 481

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 in Case R 1670/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the invalidity proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the invalidity proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

Pleas in law

| — | infringement of Articles 52, 56, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 52, 56, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | infringement of Rules 50, 55 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Rules 50, 55 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 216/96; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 216/96;

| — | infringement of Article 6 ECHR; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 6 ECHR;

| — | infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/23

---

Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament

(Case T-919/16)

(2017/C 070/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant,

| — | rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union,

| — | compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision,

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/24

---

Action brought on 5 January 2017 — RI v Council

(Case T-9/17)

(2017/C 070/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RI (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council’s appointing authority of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:






  — | Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misinterpretation of the concept of an occupational disease by the Council’s Invalidity Committee and appointing authority. The applicant contests, in particular, the committee’s findings that:

—

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cannot be recognised as an occupational disease;

| — | it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work. |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not the applicant’s Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, but rather the algoneurodystrophy (complex regional pain syndrome) which has developed following a surgical operation on her left hand, that is the source of her inability to return to work.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that the Invalidity Committee did not provide an explanation to the requisite legal standard as regards the reasons that led it to depart from the earlier medical reports clearly showing the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, described as ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome complicated by algoneurodystrophy’.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/24

---

Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament

(Case T-17/17)

(2017/C 070/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded, and

as a result:

| — | annul the decision of 27 May 2016 of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg, registering the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities in Bertrange Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s registration at the Kirchberg childcare facilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 27 May 2016 of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg, registering the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities in Bertrange Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s registration at the Kirchberg childcare facilities;

| — | annul the decision of 7 October 2016 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2016 against that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 October 2016 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2016 against that decision;

| — | grant damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/25

---

Action brought on 13 January 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-18/17)

(2017/C 070/35)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1867 of 20 October 2016 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1867 of 20 October 2016 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty; and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 27(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. By adopting the contested Regulation the Commission is alleged to have interfered in the Czech national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol, despite the fact that the Czech Republic had not sent any communication to the Commission under Article 27(3) of Directive 92/83 and the Commission had repeatedly, on the other hand, communicated that it disagreed with that approach. Under Article 27(4) of Directive 92/83, it is however not permissible to interfere in a Member States national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol without a communication from that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union and of Article 27(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. By adopting the contested Regulation the Commission is alleged to have interfered in the Czech national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol, despite the fact that the Czech Republic had not sent any communication to the Commission under Article 27(3) of Directive 92/83 and the Commission had repeatedly, on the other hand, communicated that it disagreed with that approach. Under Article 27(4) of Directive 92/83, it is however not permissible to interfere in a Member States national requirements for the complete denaturing of alcohol without a communication from that Member State.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83, since eurodenaturant 1:1:1 does not meet the purpose of that provision in so far as it does not provide sufficient guarantees in the fight against tax evasion. Eurodenaturant 1:1:1 is a very weak denaturing mixture, and alcohol completely denatured with that mixture may easily be misused for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27(1)(a) of Directive 92/83, since eurodenaturant 1:1:1 does not meet the purpose of that provision in so far as it does not provide sufficient guarantees in the fight against tax evasion. Eurodenaturant 1:1:1 is a very weak denaturing mixture, and alcohol completely denatured with that mixture may easily be misused for the manufacture of alcoholic beverages.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/26

---

Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission

(Case T-19/17)

(2017/C 070/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fastweb S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Armati, A. Guarino and E. Cerchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Fastweb S.p.A. is seeking annulment of the decision of 1 September 2016 by which the European Commission authorised the merger in Case M.7758 Hutchinson 3 Italy/Wind/JV, pursuant to Article 8(2) of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [of 20 January 2004] on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), declaring the transaction whereby Hutchinson Europe Telecommunications (HET) and VimpelCom Luxembourg Holdings (VIP) acquire joint control of a newly-created joint venture (JV) by conferring on that JV their respective activities in the telecommunications sector in Italy to be compatible with the internal market, that compatibility being subject to conditions and obligations aimed at enabling the entry into the internal market of a new [mobile] network operator (MNO).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency, and infringement of Article 8 of the regulation mentioned above.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s investigation is vitiated by serious and manifest omissions, first and foremost of a procedural nature, in particular: (A) shortcomings that occurred before the final commitments were submitted, consisting in a failure to prepare, when faced with several serious candidates interested in the package of measures, a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure capable of guaranteeing that the best candidate would be selected, and in incorrectly accepting a ‘fix-it-first’ preventive remedy proposed too late in the procedure; and (B) shortcomings in the inquiry that took place after the final commitments were submitted, in particular the failure to assess certain aspects of those commitments (for example with regard to the roaming agreement) and the lack of adequate further examination regarding the suitability of the proposed acquirer, shortcomings rendered more obvious by the lack of market testing. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency, and infringement of Article 8 of the regulation mentioned above.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s investigation is vitiated by serious and manifest omissions, first and foremost of a procedural nature, in particular: (A) shortcomings that occurred before the final commitments were submitted, consisting in a failure to prepare, when faced with several serious candidates interested in the package of measures, a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure capable of guaranteeing that the best candidate would be selected, and in incorrectly accepting a ‘fix-it-first’ preventive remedy proposed too late in the procedure; and (B) shortcomings in the inquiry that took place after the final commitments were submitted, in particular the failure to assess certain aspects of those commitments (for example with regard to the roaming agreement) and the lack of adequate further examination regarding the suitability of the proposed acquirer, shortcomings rendered more obvious by the lack of market testing.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in so far as the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had determined the success of the entry of H3G, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hutchinson through which the latter operates.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in particular, did not concern itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years was operating within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in so far as the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had determined the success of the entry of H3G, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hutchinson through which the latter operates.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in particular, did not concern itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years was operating within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the package of commitments.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the comparison with H3G’s frequency holdings pre-merger in itself raises serious doubts regarding the adequacy of the proposed spectrum allocation. In addition, the Commission relied on future, uncertain events, such as the participation of the new MNO in the future calls for tenders, without however taking into account the high costs connected with the impending renewal and refarming of the transferred frequencies. The Commission accepted the transfer of an inadequate number of sites, relying on uncertain agreements with the tower companies. Lastly, the transitional agreement concluded with the notifying parties, which has a structure based on capacity, strongly reduces the incentive to invest. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the package of commitments.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the comparison with H3G’s frequency holdings pre-merger in itself raises serious doubts regarding the adequacy of the proposed spectrum allocation. In addition, the Commission relied on future, uncertain events, such as the participation of the new MNO in the future calls for tenders, without however taking into account the high costs connected with the impending renewal and refarming of the transferred frequencies. The Commission accepted the transfer of an inadequate number of sites, relying on uncertain agreements with the tower companies. Lastly, the transitional agreement concluded with the notifying parties, which has a structure based on capacity, strongly reduces the incentive to invest.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by basing the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that the price is the only significant competitive factor within the relevant market, failed to conduct a proper inquiry.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission disregarded the fact that network coverage and quality are of comparable importance, and that it should not have confined itself to a static analysis of the preferences of a very biased sample of users in the ‘low spender’ category. In addition, the Commission disregarded the prospective importance of the merger, which is decisive for a new entrant, which requires additional bargaining levers compared with an established operator (such as H3G). The selection of an acquirer capable of addressing the converging demand would have ensured greater effectiveness and sustainability of the commitments over time. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by basing the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that the price is the only significant competitive factor within the relevant market, failed to conduct a proper inquiry.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission disregarded the fact that network coverage and quality are of comparable importance, and that it should not have confined itself to a static analysis of the preferences of a very biased sample of users in the ‘low spender’ category. In addition, the Commission disregarded the prospective importance of the merger, which is decisive for a new entrant, which requires additional bargaining levers compared with an established operator (such as H3G). The selection of an acquirer capable of addressing the converging demand would have ensured greater effectiveness and sustainability of the commitments over time.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the suitability of the commitments for resolving the concerns regarding coordinated effects on the retail market.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in order to be able to act in a truly aggressive way and ‘break’ the collusive equilibrium, the new entrant would have to be able to act independently of other MNOs. However, the formula selected for the making available of resources (roaming agreements and the national multi-operator core network (MOCN)) creates a close dependence between the new MNO and the JV for a protracted period. The contested decision is further vitiated by a failure to carry out a proper inquiry as regards the compatibility of the roaming contracts/national MOCN with Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the suitability of the commitments for resolving the concerns regarding coordinated effects on the retail market.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in order to be able to act in a truly aggressive way and ‘break’ the collusive equilibrium, the new entrant would have to be able to act independently of other MNOs. However, the formula selected for the making available of resources (roaming agreements and the national multi-operator core network (MOCN)) creates a close dependence between the new MNO and the JV for a protracted period. The contested decision is further vitiated by a failure to carry out a proper inquiry as regards the compatibility of the roaming contracts/national MOCN with Article 101 TFEU.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the commitments are unsuitable for responding to the competition concerns on the wholesale access market.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that, in particular, the Commission erred in its reconstruction of the counter-factual scenario and in not requiring any specific measure, relying exclusively on the assurance that Iliad will have an incentive to offer such services notwithstanding (i) the lack of measures to that effect and (ii) that operator’s experience in France. On the contrary, the commitments encourage the new MNO to target and acquire specifically and solely the clientele of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the commitments are unsuitable for responding to the competition concerns on the wholesale access market.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in particular, the Commission erred in its reconstruction of the counter-factual scenario and in not requiring any specific measure, relying exclusively on the assurance that Iliad will have an incentive to offer such services notwithstanding (i) the lack of measures to that effect and (ii) that operator’s experience in France. On the contrary, the commitments encourage the new MNO to target and acquire specifically and solely the clientele of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 139/2004 and infringement of the principle of sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission accepted Iliad as a suitable acquirer without taking into consideration the risks to the effectiveness of the commitments inherent in the entry of an operator with its characteristics and without adequate guarantees having been provided in the commitments, in particular with regard to network coverage/quality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 139/2004 and infringement of the principle of sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission accepted Iliad as a suitable acquirer without taking into consideration the risks to the effectiveness of the commitments inherent in the entry of an operator with its characteristics and without adequate guarantees having been provided in the commitments, in particular with regard to network coverage/quality.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/28

---

Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-26/17)

(2017/C 070/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt report No A8-3019/2016 of Mr [X]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt report No A8-3019/2016 of Mr [X];

| — | order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh the sum of EUR 8 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh the sum of EUR 8 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | 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 to Mr Jalkh, by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs, the sum of EUR 5 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh, by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs, the sum of EUR 5 000.

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 infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The applicant is of the view that the Parliament misapplied the rules on immunity of Members of the French Parliament, and that it intentionally confuses Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The applicant is of the view that the Parliament misapplied the rules on immunity of Members of the French Parliament, and that it intentionally confuses Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, based on the necessary application of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. According to the applicant, the statements and opinions expressed in Mr Le Pen’s speech on the Front National website came within the scope of the political activities of Mr Le Pen and the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, based on the necessary application of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. According to the applicant, the statements and opinions expressed in Mr Le Pen’s speech on the Front National website came within the scope of the political activities of Mr Le Pen and the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the very concept of parliamentary immunity. The applicant takes the view that the European Parliament feigns ignorance of the fact that, in a democracy, parliamentary immunity offers a twofold immunity from legal proceedings: non-liability and freedom from criminal prosecution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the very concept of parliamentary immunity. The applicant takes the view that the European Parliament feigns ignorance of the fact that, in a democracy, parliamentary immunity offers a twofold immunity from legal proceedings: non-liability and freedom from criminal prosecution.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to adhere to the consistent decision-making practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament on:






  — | freedom of expression |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to adhere to the consistent decision-making practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament on:

—

freedom of expression

| — | fumus persecutionis |
| --- | --- |

—

fumus persecutionis

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect Community legal certainty and frustration of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect Community legal certainty and frustration of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the independence of a Member of Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the independence of a Member of Parliament.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation in that regard. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation in that regard. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence. He states that he was not invited when the vote was being taken in the Parliament’s plenary session on the request to waive his immunity. He thus had only ten minutes to present his defence, in regard to two cases concerning him, before the Committee on Legal Affairs, after the close of its business, at approximately 18:00. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence. He states that he was not invited when the vote was being taken in the Parliament’s plenary session on the request to waive his immunity. He thus had only ten minutes to present his defence, in regard to two cases concerning him, before the Committee on Legal Affairs, after the close of its business, at approximately 18:00.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity. There is, he submits, no basis for the initial complaint and the charges pursued by the French prosecuting authorities against him. In that regard, he argues, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious. The act of bringing judicial proceedings against the applicant, even though he has himself brought an end to the alleged offence, which he did not commit, and the decision to waive his parliamentary immunity have manifestly nothing to do with justice but are designed to denigrate, harm and persecute him and his movement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity. There is, he submits, no basis for the initial complaint and the charges pursued by the French prosecuting authorities against him. In that regard, he argues, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious. The act of bringing judicial proceedings against the applicant, even though he has himself brought an end to the alleged offence, which he did not commit, and the decision to waive his parliamentary immunity have manifestly nothing to do with justice but are designed to denigrate, harm and persecute him and his movement.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/29

---

Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-27/17)

(2017/C 070/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt report No A8-3018/2016 of Mr [X]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt report No A8-3018/2016 of Mr [X];

| — | order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh the sum of EUR 8 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh the sum of EUR 8 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | 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 to Mr Jalkh, by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs, the sum of EUR 5 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh, by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs, the sum of EUR 5 000.

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 infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The applicant is of the view that the Parliament misapplied the rules on immunity of Members of the French Parliament, and that it intentionally confuses Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The applicant is of the view that the Parliament misapplied the rules on immunity of Members of the French Parliament, and that it intentionally confuses Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, based on the necessary application of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. According to the applicant, the French judicial authorities attribute to him statements which he did not make and which those authorities do not dispute come within the scope of his political activities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, based on the necessary application of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. According to the applicant, the French judicial authorities attribute to him statements which he did not make and which those authorities do not dispute come within the scope of his political activities.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the very concept of parliamentary immunity. The applicant takes the view that the European Parliament feigns ignorance of the fact that, in a democracy, parliamentary immunity offers a twofold immunity from legal proceedings: non-liability and freedom from criminal prosecution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the very concept of parliamentary immunity. The applicant takes the view that the European Parliament feigns ignorance of the fact that, in a democracy, parliamentary immunity offers a twofold immunity from legal proceedings: non-liability and freedom from criminal prosecution.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to follow the consistent decision-making practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament on:






  — | freedom of expression |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to follow the consistent decision-making practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament on:

—

freedom of expression

| — | fumus persecutionis |
| --- | --- |

—

fumus persecutionis

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect Community legal certainty and frustration of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect Community legal certainty and frustration of legitimate expectations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the independence of a Member of Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the independence of a Member of Parliament.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence. He states that he was not invited when the vote was being taken in the Parliament’s plenary session on the request to waive his immunity. He thus had only ten minutes to present his defence, in regard to two cases concerning him, before the Committee on Legal Affairs, after the close of its business, at approximately 18:00. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence. He states that he was not invited when the vote was being taken in the Parliament’s plenary session on the request to waive his immunity. He thus had only ten minutes to present his defence, in regard to two cases concerning him, before the Committee on Legal Affairs, after the close of its business, at approximately 18:00.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity, in that:






  — | first of all, the applicant is neither the publishing director of the paper editions of the Front National (‘FN’) and its federations nor the publishing director of the websites of the FN federations; nor is he, consequently, the publishing director of the FN federation of 66 (Pyrénées-Orientales); thus, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious in that regard; |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity, in that:

—

first of all, the applicant is neither the publishing director of the paper editions of the Front National (‘FN’) and its federations nor the publishing director of the websites of the FN federations; nor is he, consequently, the publishing director of the FN federation of 66 (Pyrénées-Orientales); thus, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious in that regard;

| — | next, he is not the author of the leaflet at issue; its authors, however, are known but were not charged when his immunity was waived; |
| --- | --- |

—

next, he is not the author of the leaflet at issue; its authors, however, are known but were not charged when his immunity was waived;

| — | furthermore, the act of bringing charges against elected representatives on the ground that they call in their programme for a change of existing legislation is an extremely dangerous antidemocratic aberration since it undermines freedom of opinion in a particularly serious way. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, the act of bringing charges against elected representatives on the ground that they call in their programme for a change of existing legislation is an extremely dangerous antidemocratic aberration since it undermines freedom of opinion in a particularly serious way.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/30

---

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

(Case T-35/17)

(2017/C 070/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 258 162 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘iGrill’

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2016 in Case R 538/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/31

---

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Forest Pharma v EUIPO — Ipsen Pharma (COLINEB)

(Case T-36/17)

(2017/C 070/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Forest Pharma BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ipsen Pharma SAS (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COLINEB’ — Application for registration No 13 191 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2016 in Case R 500/2016-5

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.

---

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/31

---

Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — Belis v Commission

(Case T-557/16) (1)

(2017/C 070/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-97/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016.

---

Corrigenda

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/32

---

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case C-561/16

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22 of 23 January 2017
  )

(2017/C 070/42)

The Notice in Case C-561/16 Saras Energía should read as follows:

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saras Energía S.A.

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Other parties: Endesa SA, Endesa Energía SA, Endesa Energía XXI SLU, Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SAU, Nexus Energía SA, Nexus Renovables SLU, Engie España SL, Villar Mir Energía SL, Energya VM Gestión de Energía y Estaciones de Servicio de Guipúzcoa SA.

Questions referred

| (1) | Is legislation of a Member State establishing a national energy efficiency obligation scheme whose main method of compliance consists in an annual financial contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund established under the provisions of Article 20(4) of Directive 2012/27/EU (1) compatible with Article 7(1) and (9) of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Is legislation of a Member State establishing a national energy efficiency obligation scheme whose main method of compliance consists in an annual financial contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund established under the provisions of Article 20(4) of Directive 2012/27/EU (1) compatible with Article 7(1) and (9) of that directive?

| (2) | Is national legislation which provides for the possibility of fulfilling the energy savings obligations through the accreditation of savings as an alternative to the financial contribution to the Energy Efficiency National Fund compatible with Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of Directive 2012/27/EU? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Is national legislation which provides for the possibility of fulfilling the energy savings obligations through the accreditation of savings as an alternative to the financial contribution to the Energy Efficiency National Fund compatible with Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of Directive 2012/27/EU?

| (3) | If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the provision of that alternative possibility for the fulfilment of the energy savings obligations compatible with the abovementioned Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of the directive when its actual existence depends on whether the Government establishes it on a discretionary basis through legislation?
  In that respect, is such legislation compatible when the Government does not implement that alternative? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the provision of that alternative possibility for the fulfilment of the energy savings obligations compatible with the abovementioned Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of the directive when its actual existence depends on whether the Government establishes it on a discretionary basis through legislation?

In that respect, is such legislation compatible when the Government does not implement that alternative?

| (4) | Is a national scheme that regards as parties subject to energy saving obligations only gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, but not gas and electricity distributors or retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, compatible with Article 7(1) and (4) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Is a national scheme that regards as parties subject to energy saving obligations only gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, but not gas and electricity distributors or retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases, compatible with Article 7(1) and (4) of the directive?

| (5) | If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, is the definition of gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases as ‘obligated parties’, without the reasons being determined for gas and electricity distributors and retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases not being so defined, compatible with the abovementioned provisions of Article 7? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, is the definition of gas and electricity retail companies and wholesalers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases as ‘obligated parties’, without the reasons being determined for gas and electricity distributors and retailers of petroleum products and liquefied petroleum gases not being so defined, compatible with the abovementioned provisions of Article 7?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 1).

---