# Official Journal C 392/29 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 392 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6129 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 392

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6129 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 392/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 392/01

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 |
| 2018/C 392/02 | Case C-150/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO | 2 |
| 2018/C 392/03 | Case C-151/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO | 2 |
| 2018/C 392/04 | Case C-246/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia Roshen against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia Roshen v EUIPO | 3 |
| 2018/C 392/05 | Case C-248/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory Krasnyiy oktyabr OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO | 3 |
| 2018/C 392/06 | Case C-449/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos | 3 |
| 2018/C 392/07 | Case C-464/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C. | 4 |
| 2018/C 392/08 | Case C-474/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2018 by J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos | 5 |
| 2018/C 392/09 | Case C-488/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V. | 6 |
| 2018/C 392/10 | Case C-511/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées | 7 |
| 2018/C 392/11 | Case C-512/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice | 7 |
| 2018/C 392/12 | Case C-518/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC | 8 |
| 2018/C 392/13 | Case C-524/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2018 — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG | 9 |
| 2018/C 392/14 | Case C-538/18 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v Commission | 9 |
| 2018/C 392/15 | Case C-539/18 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission | 11 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 392/16 | Case T-715/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 –Rosneft and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Legal certainty) | 13 |
| 2018/C 392/17 | Case T-732/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity) | 14 |
| 2018/C 392/18 | Case T-734/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity) | 15 |
| 2018/C 392/19 | Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gazprom Neft v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Legal basis — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity — Proportionality) | 16 |
| 2018/C 392/20 | Case T-737/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment) | 17 |
| 2018/C 392/21 | Case T-739/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment) | 18 |
| 2018/C 392/22 | Case T-798/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — EU-Turkey Association Agreement — Fundamental rights — Proportionality) | 19 |
| 2018/C 392/23 | Case T-68/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HH Ferries and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid in favour of the Øresund road-rail fixed link — Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Øresund — State guarantees — Tax aid — Decision not to raise any objection — Decision that there was no State aid — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept of aid scheme — Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest — Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee — Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations) | 20 |
| 2018/C 392/24 | Case T-515/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Proportionality — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights) | 21 |
| 2018/C 392/25 | Case T-627/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Decoupled direct aid — Remote-sensing checks — Wine-growing sector — Cross-compliance — Reoccurrence of non-compliance) | 21 |
| 2018/C 392/26 | Case T-702/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil Service — Contractual staff — Pensions — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes — Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants — Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — Material harm) | 22 |
| 2018/C 392/27 | Case T-61/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right to good administration — Right of access to the file — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Misuse of power — Non-contractual liability) | 23 |
| 2018/C 392/28 | Case T-73/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RS v Commission (Civil service — Temporary agents — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the requirement of 12 months’ continuous employment before the expiry of the deadline for submitting an application — Leave on personal grounds — Non-admission to the tests in a competition) | 24 |
| 2018/C 392/29 | Case T-79/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications — Non-admission to the tests in a competition) | 24 |
| 2018/C 392/30 | Case T-93/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission (State aid — Steel sector — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Duty to state reasons — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test) | 25 |
| 2018/C 392/31 | Case T-94/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tigha — Earlier EU word mark TAIGA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark) | 26 |
| 2018/C 392/32 | Case T-104/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark apo — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 26 |
| 2018/C 392/33 | Case T-184/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale) (EU trade mark — Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 27 |
| 2018/C 392/34 | Case T-418/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Safari Club — Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 28 |
| 2018/C 392/35 | Case T-652/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany — Earlier national word mark TEDDY — Relative ground for refusal — Principle of ne ultra petita — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) | 28 |
| 2018/C 392/36 | Case T-664/16: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) (EU trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant — Replacement of a party to the proceedings — Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement — Inadmissibility) | 29 |
| 2018/C 392/37 | Case T-750/17: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after commencement of the action — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 30 |
| 2018/C 392/38 | Case T-401/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Strike action by interpreters — Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Partial inadmissibility — Weighing up of interests) | 31 |
| 2018/C 392/39 | Case T-402/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Interpreters’ strike action — Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Inadmissible in part — Balance of interests) | 31 |
| 2018/C 392/40 | Case T-507/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission | 32 |
| 2018/C 392/41 | Case T-520/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS) | 33 |
| 2018/C 392/42 | Case T-521/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE) | 34 |
| 2018/C 392/43 | Case T-522/18: Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC) | 35 |
| 2018/C 392/44 | Case T-523/18: Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO) | 36 |
| 2018/C 392/45 | Case T-532/18: Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges) | 37 |
| 2018/C 392/46 | Case T-534/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek) | 38 |
| 2018/C 392/47 | Case T-535/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s) | 39 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 392/02

Case C-150/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

2

2018/C 392/03

Case C-151/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

2

2018/C 392/04

Case C-246/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia Roshen against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia Roshen v EUIPO

3

2018/C 392/05

Case C-248/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory Krasnyiy oktyabr OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO

3

2018/C 392/06

Case C-449/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos

3

2018/C 392/07

Case C-464/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C.

4

2018/C 392/08

Case C-474/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2018 by J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos

5

2018/C 392/09

Case C-488/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

6

2018/C 392/10

Case C-511/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées

7

2018/C 392/11

Case C-512/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice

7

2018/C 392/12

Case C-518/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC

8

2018/C 392/13

Case C-524/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2018 — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

9

2018/C 392/14

Case C-538/18 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v Commission

9

2018/C 392/15

Case C-539/18 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission

11

General Court

2018/C 392/16

Case T-715/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 –Rosneft and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Legal certainty)

13

2018/C 392/17

Case T-732/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)

14

2018/C 392/18

Case T-734/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)

15

2018/C 392/19

Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gazprom Neft v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Legal basis — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity — Proportionality)

16

2018/C 392/20

Case T-737/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment)

17

2018/C 392/21

Case T-739/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment)

18

2018/C 392/22

Case T-798/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — EU-Turkey Association Agreement — Fundamental rights — Proportionality)

19

2018/C 392/23

Case T-68/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HH Ferries and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid in favour of the Øresund road-rail fixed link — Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Øresund — State guarantees — Tax aid — Decision not to raise any objection — Decision that there was no State aid — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept of aid scheme — Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest — Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee — Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

20

2018/C 392/24

Case T-515/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Proportionality — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights)

21

2018/C 392/25

Case T-627/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Decoupled direct aid — Remote-sensing checks — Wine-growing sector — Cross-compliance — Reoccurrence of non-compliance)

21

2018/C 392/26

Case T-702/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Civil Service — Contractual staff — Pensions — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes — Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants — Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance — Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations — Material harm)

22

2018/C 392/27

Case T-61/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right to good administration — Right of access to the file — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Misuse of power — Non-contractual liability)

23

2018/C 392/28

Case T-73/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RS v Commission (Civil service — Temporary agents — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the requirement of 12 months’ continuous employment before the expiry of the deadline for submitting an application — Leave on personal grounds — Non-admission to the tests in a competition)

24

2018/C 392/29

Case T-79/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications — Non-admission to the tests in a competition)

24

2018/C 392/30

Case T-93/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission (State aid — Steel sector — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Duty to state reasons — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test)

25

2018/C 392/31

Case T-94/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tigha — Earlier EU word mark TAIGA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark)

26

2018/C 392/32

Case T-104/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark apo — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

26

2018/C 392/33

Case T-184/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale) (EU trade mark — Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

27

2018/C 392/34

Case T-418/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Safari Club — Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

28

2018/C 392/35

Case T-652/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany — Earlier national word mark TEDDY — Relative ground for refusal — Principle of ne ultra petita — Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

28

2018/C 392/36

Case T-664/16: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi) (EU trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant — Replacement of a party to the proceedings — Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant — Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement — Inadmissibility)

29

2018/C 392/37

Case T-750/17: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after commencement of the action — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

30

2018/C 392/38

Case T-401/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Strike action by interpreters — Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Partial inadmissibility — Weighing up of interests)

31

2018/C 392/39

Case T-402/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Interpreters’ strike action — Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Inadmissible in part — Balance of interests)

31

2018/C 392/40

Case T-507/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission

32

2018/C 392/41

Case T-520/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

33

2018/C 392/42

Case T-521/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

34

2018/C 392/43

Case T-522/18: Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

35

2018/C 392/44

Case T-523/18: Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

36

2018/C 392/45

Case T-532/18: Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)

37

2018/C 392/46

Case T-534/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

38

2018/C 392/47

Case T-535/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

39

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/1

---

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

(2018/C 392/01)

Last publication

OJ C 381, 22.10.2018

Past publications

OJ C 373, 15.10.2018

OJ C 364, 8.10.2018

OJ C 352, 1.10.2018

OJ C 341, 24.9.2018

OJ C 328, 17.9.2018

OJ C 319, 10.9.2018

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-212/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

(Case C-150/18 P)

(2018/C 392/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/2

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by El Corte Inglés SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 December 2017 in Case T-213/16: El Corte Inglés v EUIPO

(Case C-151/18 P)

(2018/C 392/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/3

---

Appeal brought on 6 April 2018 by Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-775/16: Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO

(Case C-246/18 P)

(2018/C 392/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (represented by: R. Žabolienė, advokatė, I. Lukauskienė, advokatė)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO

(Case C-248/18 P)

(2018/C 392/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte, J. Stock, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’

By order of 11 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/3

---

Appeal brought on 6 July 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos

(Case C-449/18 P)

(2018/C 392/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini and J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L.

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

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

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

EUIPO submits that the judgment under appeal ought to be set aside in so far as the General Court has infringed Article 8(1)(b) of European Trade Mark Regulation, on the following grounds:

| — | The General Court has erred in law in examining the conceptual similarity between the signs, since it takes into account only the perception of a significant part of the relevant public and fails to establish the relevance of the remainder of the relevant public, for whom the conceptual difference between the marks fails to counteract their visual or phonetic similarity. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court has erred in law in examining the conceptual similarity between the signs, since it takes into account only the perception of a significant part of the relevant public and fails to establish the relevance of the remainder of the relevant public, for whom the conceptual difference between the marks fails to counteract their visual or phonetic similarity.

| — | Accordingly, the General Court has erred in law by discounting the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the conceptual perception that a ‘significant part’ of the public has of the marks at issue, rather than assessing whether such a likelihood of confusion exists in a non-negligible part of the relevant public, as required by case-law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, the General Court has erred in law by discounting the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the conceptual perception that a ‘significant part’ of the public has of the marks at issue, rather than assessing whether such a likelihood of confusion exists in a non-negligible part of the relevant public, as required by case-law.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C.

(Case C-464/18)

(2018/C 392/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZX

Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction?

| 2. | Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction?

| 3. | In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/5

---

Appeal brought on 19 July 2018 by J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos

(Case C-474/18 P)

(2018/C 392/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L. (represented by: J. Guëll Serra and R. Gimeno-Bayón Cobos, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Set aside, in whole, the judgment under appeal of 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14; (1) and, accordingly |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside, in whole, the judgment under appeal of 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14; (1) and, accordingly

| — | Give final judgment in the matter, if the state of the proceedings so permits; or |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment in the matter, if the state of the proceedings so permits; or

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the binding criteria of the Court of Justice; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the binding criteria of the Court of Justice; and

| — | Order Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, which had refused the mark ‘MESSI’ on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark ‘MASSI’, holding that, despite the marks ‘MASSI’ and ‘MESSI’ being visually and phonetically similar and referring to the same category of goods, the Board of Appeal had committed an error given that the conceptual differences between the marks prevent any likelihood of confusion.

The judgment of the General Court is vitiated by four errors of law, for which reason the appeal is brought on four grounds:

| 1. | In the judgment under appeal, the General Court states that had the Board of Appeal taken into account the appellant’s reputation, it ought to have found that the word ‘messi’ was clearly different conceptually from the word ‘massi’. Contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal, the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the General Court has repeatedly held that the possible reputation of the mark applied for is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court states that had the Board of Appeal taken into account the appellant’s reputation, it ought to have found that the word ‘messi’ was clearly different conceptually from the word ‘massi’. Contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal, the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the General Court has repeatedly held that the possible reputation of the mark applied for is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation.

| 2. | The General Court also erred in finding that the reputation of the applicant’s surname was a well-known fact which ought to have been taken into account by the Board of Appeal, despite it not having been established or even claimed by Mr Lionel Messi himself before the Board of Appeal, since it was a fact that any person may know or which may be checked through generally accessible sources. The level of awareness of the applicant’s surname in Europe at the time of the decision in the opposition proceedings (12/06/2013) is not a matter which can be presumed in 2018, particularly as this had been neither relied upon before the Board of Appeal nor supported by any evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court also erred in finding that the reputation of the applicant’s surname was a well-known fact which ought to have been taken into account by the Board of Appeal, despite it not having been established or even claimed by Mr Lionel Messi himself before the Board of Appeal, since it was a fact that any person may know or which may be checked through generally accessible sources. The level of awareness of the applicant’s surname in Europe at the time of the decision in the opposition proceedings (12/06/2013) is not a matter which can be presumed in 2018, particularly as this had been neither relied upon before the Board of Appeal nor supported by any evidence.

| 3. | In the present case, there was a new application (mutatio libelli), which prevented the appellant from properly defending itself, since the General Court allowed a new and separate plea in law which had not been relied upon before the Board of Appeal: the ‘distinctive conceptual MESSI effect’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the present case, there was a new application (mutatio libelli), which prevented the appellant from properly defending itself, since the General Court allowed a new and separate plea in law which had not been relied upon before the Board of Appeal: the ‘distinctive conceptual MESSI effect’.

| 4. | The judgment incorrectly applies the PICARO/PICASSO judgment given that (i) in the PICASSO/PICARO case the well-known mark was the opponent’s mark ‘PICASSO’ whereas, in the present case, the allegedly well-known mark is the mark applied for; and (ii) that judgment dealt with goods in respect of which the level of attention of the average consumer, at the time of purchase, is particularly high whereas the present case concerns goods intended for the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The judgment incorrectly applies the PICARO/PICASSO judgment given that (i) in the PICASSO/PICARO case the well-known mark was the opponent’s mark ‘PICASSO’ whereas, in the present case, the allegedly well-known mark is the mark applied for; and (ii) that judgment dealt with goods in respect of which the level of attention of the average consumer, at the time of purchase, is particularly high whereas the present case concerns goods intended for the reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer in the European Union.

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:T:2018:230

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

(Case C-488/18)

(2018/C 392/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen

Respondent: Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) under which Member States are to exempt ‘the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education’, have direct effect, with the result that, in the absence of transposition, that provision may be relied on directly by non-profit-making organisations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) under which Member States are to exempt ‘the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education’, have direct effect, with the result that, in the absence of transposition, that provision may be relied on directly by non-profit-making organisations?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Is ‘non-profit-making organisation’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax






  — | a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Is ‘non-profit-making organisation’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

—

a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, or

| — | are the Member States authorised to make the existence of such an organisation subject to conditions such as Paragraph 52, in conjunction with Paragraph 55, of the Abgabenordnung (German General Tax Code) (or Paragraph 51 et seq. of the General Tax Code in their entirety)? |
| --- | --- |

—

are the Member States authorised to make the existence of such an organisation subject to conditions such as Paragraph 52, in conjunction with Paragraph 55, of the Abgabenordnung (German General Tax Code) (or Paragraph 51 et seq. of the General Tax Code in their entirety)?

| 3. | If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously: Must a non-profit-making organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation in order to promote sport and physical education? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously: Must a non-profit-making organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation in order to promote sport and physical education?

---

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

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées

(Case C-511/18)

(2018/C 392/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Igwan.net

Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Ministre de l’Intérieur, Ministre des Armées

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, against a background of serious and persistent threats to national security, and in particular the terrorist threat, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, against a background of serious and persistent threats to national security, and in particular the terrorist threat, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union?

| 2. | Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as authorising legislative measures, such as the real-time measures for the collection of the traffic and location data of specified individuals, which, whilst affecting the rights and obligations of the providers of an electronic communications service, do not however require them to comply with a specific obligation to retain their data? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as authorising legislative measures, such as the real-time measures for the collection of the traffic and location data of specified individuals, which, whilst affecting the rights and obligations of the providers of an electronic communications service, do not however require them to comply with a specific obligation to retain their data?

| 3. | Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as making the legality of the procedures for the collection of connection data subject in all cases to a requirement that the persons concerned are duly informed once such information is no longer liable to jeopardise the investigations being undertaken by the competent authorities, or may such procedures be regarded as lawful taking into account all the other existing procedural guarantees, since those guarantees ensure that the right to a remedy is effective? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as making the legality of the procedures for the collection of connection data subject in all cases to a requirement that the persons concerned are duly informed once such information is no longer liable to jeopardise the investigations being undertaken by the competent authorities, or may such procedures be regarded as lawful taking into account all the other existing procedural guarantees, since those guarantees ensure that the right to a remedy is effective?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 August 2018 — French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs v Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice

(Case C-512/18)

(2018/C 392/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: French Data Network, La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs

Defendants: Premier ministre, Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, inter alia in the light of the guarantees and checks to which the collection and use of such connection data are then subject, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the general and indiscriminate retention obligation imposed on providers on the basis of the permissive provisions of Article 15(1) of Directive [2002/58/EC] of 12 July 2002 (1) to be regarded, inter alia in the light of the guarantees and checks to which the collection and use of such connection data are then subject, as interference justified by the right to security guaranteed in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of national security, responsibility for which falls to the Member States alone pursuant to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union?

| 2. | Are the provisions of Directive [2000/31/EC] of 8 June 2000 (2), read in the light of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as allowing a State to introduce national legislation requiring the persons whose activity consists in offering access to online public communications services and the natural or legal persons who, even free of charge, and for provision to the public via online public communications services, store signals, writing, images, sounds or messages of any kind provided by recipients of those services to retain the data capable of enabling the identification of anyone who has contributed to the creation of the content or some of the content of the services which they provide, so that the judicial authority may, where appropriate, require the communication of those data with a view to ensuring compliance with the rules on civil and criminal liability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of Directive [2000/31/EC] of 8 June 2000 (2), read in the light of Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as allowing a State to introduce national legislation requiring the persons whose activity consists in offering access to online public communications services and the natural or legal persons who, even free of charge, and for provision to the public via online public communications services, store signals, writing, images, sounds or messages of any kind provided by recipients of those services to retain the data capable of enabling the identification of anyone who has contributed to the creation of the content or some of the content of the services which they provide, so that the judicial authority may, where appropriate, require the communication of those data with a view to ensuring compliance with the rules on civil and criminal liability?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

(2)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 19.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC

(Case C-518/18)

(2018/C 392/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RD

Defendant: SC

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the course of the proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2018 — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-524/18)

(2018/C 392/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG

Defendant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a reference to general, non-specific health-related benefits ‘accompanied’ within the meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) by specific health claims in accordance with one of the lists provided for in Article 13 or 14 of that regulation even if that reference is situated on the front and the authorised claims are situated on the back of an outer packaging and, in the perception of the public, although the claims are clearly related to the reference in terms of content, the reference does not contain a clear indication, marked with an asterisk for example, to the claims on the back? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a reference to general, non-specific health-related benefits ‘accompanied’ within the meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) by specific health claims in accordance with one of the lists provided for in Article 13 or 14 of that regulation even if that reference is situated on the front and the authorised claims are situated on the back of an outer packaging and, in the perception of the public, although the claims are clearly related to the reference in terms of content, the reference does not contain a clear indication, marked with an asterisk for example, to the claims on the back?

| 2. | Does evidence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also need to be provided in the case of reference being made to general, non-specific benefits within the meaning of Article 10(3) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does evidence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also need to be provided in the case of reference being made to general, non-specific benefits within the meaning of Article 10(3) of that regulation?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 with regard to the list of nutrition claims Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2012 L 310, p. 36.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/9

---

Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v Commission

(Case C-538/18 P)

(2018/C 392/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Subject matter

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v Commission.

By that judgment the General Court allowed in part the action brought under Article 263 TFEU in which České dráhy sought the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 in Case AT.40156 — Falcon. The General Court annulled the contested decision of the Commission ‘in so far as it concerns routes other than the Prague-Ostrava route and conduct other than the alleged predatory pricing practices’. The General Court dismissed the action as to the remainder. It also ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v European Commission, EU:T:2018:368, in so far as the General Court dismissed the action and in so far as the General Court decided on costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16 České dráhy v European Commission, EU:T:2018:368, in so far as the General Court dismissed the action and in so far as the General Court decided on costs;

| — | annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 in Case AT.40156 — Falcon; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 in Case AT.40156 — Falcon;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case T-325/16 and those in connection with the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case T-325/16 and those in connection with the appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | First ground of appeal: the General Court incorrectly concluded that the contested decision of the Commission had a sufficient statement of reasons.
  České dráhy contends that the European Commission did not give sufficiently precise and detailed reasons for the contested decision, and thus did not comply with the requirements following from the case-law of the Court of Justice. The General Court decided wrongly, in that it none the less did not annul — in its entirety — the contested decision of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: the General Court incorrectly concluded that the contested decision of the Commission had a sufficient statement of reasons.

České dráhy contends that the European Commission did not give sufficiently precise and detailed reasons for the contested decision, and thus did not comply with the requirements following from the case-law of the Court of Justice. The General Court decided wrongly, in that it none the less did not annul — in its entirety — the contested decision of the Commission.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into account that before adopting the contested decision the Commission disregarded a large amount of evidence that České dráhy was not acting unlawfully.
  České dráhy contends that the Commission did not, before adopting the contested decision, address the facts showing that the conduct of České dráhy was not unlawful, and adopted the contested decision (contrary to the principle of proportionality) solely on the basis of certain isolated items of evidence taken out of context. The General Court decided wrongly, in that it none the less did not annul — in its entirety — the contested decision of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into account that before adopting the contested decision the Commission disregarded a large amount of evidence that České dráhy was not acting unlawfully.

České dráhy contends that the Commission did not, before adopting the contested decision, address the facts showing that the conduct of České dráhy was not unlawful, and adopted the contested decision (contrary to the principle of proportionality) solely on the basis of certain isolated items of evidence taken out of context. The General Court decided wrongly, in that it none the less did not annul — in its entirety — the contested decision of the Commission.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: the General Court incorrectly assessed the conditions of application of Article 102 TFEU.
  České dráhy contends that on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 the Commission may only investigate conduct which could be an infringement of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU. The Commission ordered the inspection at the seat of České dráhy because it suspected an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. That provision can only apply where (a) an undertaking may have abused a dominant position in the whole or a substantial part of the internal market and (b) the alleged abusive conduct could substantially affect trade between Member States. České dráhy considers that the General Court incorrectly concluded that those conditions were satisfied in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court incorrectly assessed the conditions of application of Article 102 TFEU.

České dráhy contends that on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 the Commission may only investigate conduct which could be an infringement of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU. The Commission ordered the inspection at the seat of České dráhy because it suspected an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. That provision can only apply where (a) an undertaking may have abused a dominant position in the whole or a substantial part of the internal market and (b) the alleged abusive conduct could substantially affect trade between Member States. České dráhy considers that the General Court incorrectly concluded that those conditions were satisfied in the present case.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court’s decision on costs is wrong.
  České dráhy contends that the General Court had to allow the application in full and thus also order the Commission to reimburse České dráhy the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court’s decision on costs is wrong.

České dráhy contends that the General Court had to allow the application in full and thus also order the Commission to reimburse České dráhy the costs of the proceedings.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/11

---

Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission

(Case C-539/18 P)

(2018/C 392/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Subject matter

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission.

By that judgment the General Court dismissed the action brought under Article 263 TFEU in which České dráhy sought the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins. The General Court also ordered České dráhy to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission, EU:T:2018:367; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission, EU:T:2018:367;

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of České dráhy in connection with Case T-621/16 and those of České dráhy in connection with the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of České dráhy in connection with Case T-621/16 and those of České dráhy in connection with the appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal České dráhy puts forward four grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal: in so far as the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16, it should also allow the present appeal.
  By the appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16, České dráhy seeks for the Court of Justice to annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission ordering an inspection carried out at the seat of České dráhy in April 2016. The Commission’s decision of 22 June 2016, which České dráhy seeks to have annulled in the associated case, was adopted on the basis of documents seized during that earlier inspection. If, then, the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16 (that is, if the Court of Justice finds that the earlier inspection was entirely unlawful), it should also annul the contested decision of the Commission of 22 June 2016. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal: in so far as the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16, it should also allow the present appeal.

By the appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16, České dráhy seeks for the Court of Justice to annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission ordering an inspection carried out at the seat of České dráhy in April 2016. The Commission’s decision of 22 June 2016, which České dráhy seeks to have annulled in the associated case, was adopted on the basis of documents seized during that earlier inspection. If, then, the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16 (that is, if the Court of Justice finds that the earlier inspection was entirely unlawful), it should also annul the contested decision of the Commission of 22 June 2016.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal: the General Court did not examine whether the documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered had been seized within the unlawful part of the first inspection, and it decided as if the first inspection had been ordered entirely in accordance with the law.
  The documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered were seized in the preceding (first) inspection of the Commission at the seat of České dráhy. By its judgment in Case T-325/16 the General Court annulled in part the Commission’s decision ordering the first inspection, to the extent that it did not concern alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route. České dráhy considers that the documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were seized in the unlawful part of the first inspection (the Commission would not have come across them if it had carried out the first inspection solely to the lawful extent) and could not therefore be used as a basis for ordering the second inspection. The General Court did not examine those questions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court did not examine whether the documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered had been seized within the unlawful part of the first inspection, and it decided as if the first inspection had been ordered entirely in accordance with the law.

The documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered were seized in the preceding (first) inspection of the Commission at the seat of České dráhy. By its judgment in Case T-325/16 the General Court annulled in part the Commission’s decision ordering the first inspection, to the extent that it did not concern alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route. České dráhy considers that the documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were seized in the unlawful part of the first inspection (the Commission would not have come across them if it had carried out the first inspection solely to the lawful extent) and could not therefore be used as a basis for ordering the second inspection. The General Court did not examine those questions.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal: the General Court assessed on the basis of an incorrect legal criterion whether those documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were related to alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route.
  The General Court proceeded from the incorrect legal criterion that practically any documents found at the seat of České dráhy could be linked with assessing the alleged predatory pricing of that company on the Prague-Ostrava route (according to that legal criterion, the Commission’s inspection directed to alleged predatory pricing is practically unlimited). On the basis of that incorrect legal criterion the General Court came to the conclusion that the Commission had been entitled during its first inspection to seize the documents on the basis of which it subsequently ordered the second inspection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court assessed on the basis of an incorrect legal criterion whether those documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were related to alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route.

The General Court proceeded from the incorrect legal criterion that practically any documents found at the seat of České dráhy could be linked with assessing the alleged predatory pricing of that company on the Prague-Ostrava route (according to that legal criterion, the Commission’s inspection directed to alleged predatory pricing is practically unlimited). On the basis of that incorrect legal criterion the General Court came to the conclusion that the Commission had been entitled during its first inspection to seize the documents on the basis of which it subsequently ordered the second inspection.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court’s decision on costs is wrong.
  České dráhy contends that the General Court rightly had to allow the application and thus also order the Commission to reimburse České dráhy the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court’s decision on costs is wrong.

České dráhy contends that the General Court rightly had to allow the application and thus also order the Commission to reimburse České dráhy the costs of the proceedings.

---

General Court

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 –Rosneft and Others v Council

(Case T-715/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia - Right to property - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 392/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia), RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow), AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia), RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow), Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: initially T. Beazley QC, subsequently by L. Van den Hende, J. Charles, lawyers, M. Schonberg and K. Krissinel, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially C. Brodie, and subsequently by V. Kaye, and subsequently by S. Brandon, and subsequently by C. Crane, and finally by R. Fadoju, acting as Agents, and by C. Banner, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1(2)(b) to (d) and Article 1(3) of, and Annex III to, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65), and also of Articles 3, 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Annex II, Article 5(2)(b) to (d) and Article 5(3), Annex VI and Article 11 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), and by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAO Rosneft Oil Company, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Rosneft Oil Company, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

(Case T-732/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))

(2018/C 392/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose QC, M. Lester QC, J.-A. Fearns and P. Crowther, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J.P. Hix, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1148 of 28 June 2017 (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 35), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Sberbank of Russia OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council

(Case T-734/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))

(2018/C 392/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders VTB Bank PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gazprom Neft v Council

(Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Legal basis - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity - Proportionality))

(2018/C 392/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gazprom Neft PAO, formerly Gazprom Neft OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, J. Charles, lawyers, and S. Cogman, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by C. Brodie and S. Simmons, and subsequently by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, and subsequently by C. Brodie, C. Crane and S. Brandon, and finally by C. Brodie, R. Fadoju and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna QC and C. Banner, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Article 1(2)(b), (c) and (d), Article 1(3) and (4), Article 4, Article 4a and Article 7(1)(a) of, and Annex III to, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54) and Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58); and (ii) Article 3, Article 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Article 5(2)(b), (c) and (d), Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 11(1)(a) of, and Annex VI to, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14 be joined for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

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

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Gazprom Neft PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Gazprom Neft PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council

(Case T-737/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 392/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and G. Étienne, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council

(Case T-739/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 392/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: J.M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — DenizBank v Council

(Case T-798/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - EU-Turkey Association Agreement - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))

(2018/C 392/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DenizBank A.Ş. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: O. Jones, D. Heaton, Barristers, R. Mattick, S. Utku, Solicitors, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially S. Boelaert and A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, and subsequently S. Boelaert and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3) and by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders DenizBank A.Ş. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HH Ferries and Others v Commission

(Case T-68/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid in favour of the Øresund road-rail fixed link - Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Øresund - State guarantees - Tax aid - Decision not to raise any objection - Decision that there was no State aid - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest - Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee - Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 392/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HH Ferries I/S, formerly Scandlines Øresund I/S (Helsingør, Denmark), HH Ferries Helsingor ApS (Helsingør), HH Ferries Helsingborg AB, formerly HH-Ferries Helsingborg AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Azelius, P. Remnelid and L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyers)

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

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, and subsequently by A.Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, L. Zettergren and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7358 final of 15 October 2014 not to classify certain measures as aid and not to raise any objection following the preliminary investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU to State aid SA.36558 (2014/NN) and SA.38371 (2014/NN) — Denmark, and SA.36662 (2014/NN) — Sweden, concerning the public financing of the Øresund Fixed Link road/rail infrastructure project (OJ 2014 C 418, p. 1 and OJ 2014 C 437, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision C(2014) 7358 final of the European Commission of 15 October 2014 in so far as it decided not to raise any objection with respect to the tax aid relating to depreciation of assets and the carrying forward of losses granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and with respect to guarantees granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision C(2014) 7358 final of the European Commission of 15 October 2014 in so far as it decided not to raise any objection with respect to the tax aid relating to depreciation of assets and the carrying forward of losses granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and with respect to guarantees granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden.

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HH Ferries I/S, HH Ferries Helsingor ApS and HH Ferries Helsingborg AB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HH Ferries I/S, HH Ferries Helsingor ApS and HH Ferries Helsingborg AB.

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council

(Case T-515/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Proportionality - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights))

(2018/C 392/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf and M. Brüggemann, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50); (ii) the letter from the Council dated 31 July 2015 by which the Council stated that the applicant should remain subject to the measures in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1); (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22); and (iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-627/16) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Decoupled direct aid - Remote-sensing checks - Wine-growing sector - Cross-compliance - Reoccurrence of non-compliance))

(2018/C 392/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: F. Bergius, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 30 206 401,58.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 6 356 909,30 in respect of cross-compliance checks for the financial year 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 6 356 909,30 in respect of cross-compliance checks for the financial year 2011;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-702/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Contractual staff - Pensions - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of pension rights acquired previously under national schemes - Harm resulting from the allegedly insufficient information provided to the appellants by the AECC when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years concerning those appellants - Claim for compensation dismissed at first instance - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - Material harm))

(2018/C 392/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: José Barosso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016, Barosso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (F-126/15, EU:F:2016:159), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the appellants to bear a quarter of their costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the appellants to bear a quarter of their costs;

| 3. | Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the appellants. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the appellants.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament

(Case T-61/17) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand - Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Right to good administration - Right of access to the file - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Misuse of power - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 392/27)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Jasenko Selimovic (Hägersten, Sweden) (represented initially by: B. Leidhammar and subsequently by: S. Scheiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, L. Tapper Brandberg and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the President of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the request for an expedited procedure as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the request for an expedited procedure as manifestly inadmissible;

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

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Mr Jasenko Selimovic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Jasenko Selimovic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RS v Commission

(Case T-73/17) (1)

((Civil service - Temporary agents - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to the requirement of 12 months’ continuous employment before the expiry of the deadline for submitting an application - Leave on personal grounds - Non-admission to the tests in a competition))

(2018/C 392/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RS (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of the applicant and, second, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of RS; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of RS;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission

(Case T-79/17) (1)

((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications - Non-admission to the tests in a competition))

(2018/C 392/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of the applicant and, second, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of Mr Alain Schoonjans; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of Mr Alain Schoonjans;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission

(Case T-93/17) (1)

((State aid - Steel sector - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Duty to state reasons - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))

(2018/C 392/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Duferco Long Products SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Duferco Long Products SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Duferco Long Products SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

(Case T-94/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark tigha - Earlier EU word mark TAIGA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark))

(2018/C 392/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Kusturovic, D. Walicka and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden) (represented by C. Eckhartt and K. Thanbichler-Brandl, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 (Case R 693/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Taiga and ACTC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)

(Case T-104/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark apo - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 392/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Apo International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale)

(Case T-184/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 392/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: V. Mensing and A. Schifko, and subsequently by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 1115/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of four green squares on a scale as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)

(Case T-418/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Safari Club - Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 392/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eduard Meier GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Schicker and M. Knitter, lawyers)

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: Calzaturificio Elisabet Srl (Monte Urano, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Calzaturificio Elisabet and Eduard Meier.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4), in so far as it upheld the opposition to registration of the EU word mark Safari Club for the goods ‘game bags’ and ‘clothing for hunting, clothing and hunting boots’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4), in so far as it upheld the opposition to registration of the EU word mark Safari Club for the goods ‘game bags’ and ‘clothing for hunting, clothing and hunting boots’;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

(Case T-652/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eddy’s Snackcompany - Earlier national word mark TEDDY - Relative ground for refusal - Principle of ne ultra petita - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 392/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli and Eddy’s Snack Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 1999/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/29

---

Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — PJ v EUIPO — Erdmann & Rossi (Erdmann & Rossi)

(Case T-664/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant - Replacement of a party to the proceedings - Transfer of the rights of the EU trade mark applicant - Representation by a lawyer who is not an independent third party with regard to the applicant for replacement - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 392/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: PJ (represented by: S., lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Erdmann & Rossi GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2016 (Case R 1670/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Erdmann & Rossi and PJ.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action shall be dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action shall be dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for replacement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for replacement.

| 3. | PJ is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

PJ is to pay the costs.

| 4. | [Y]-GmbH, and each party, is to bear its own costs relating to the application for replacement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

[Y]-GmbH, and each party, is to bear its own costs relating to the application for replacement.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/30

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

(Case T-750/17) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after commencement of the action - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 392/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6020 final of 29 August 2017, rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to the Commission’s comments and the detailed opinion of the Republic of Malta issued in the framework of notification procedure 2016/398/PL, pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

| 4. | The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament

(Case T-401/18 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Strike action by interpreters - Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Application for interim measures - Partial inadmissibility - Weighing up of interests))

(2018/C 392/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 concerning the requisition of interpreters and future decisions concerning the requisition of interpreters for 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to limit requisitions of interpreters in future.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament

(Case T-402/18 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Interpreters’ strike action - Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Application for interim measures - Inadmissible in part - Balance of interests))

(2018/C 392/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and the 30 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the application of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters and future decisions requisitioning interpreters on 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament limit the requisitions of interpreters in future.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/32

---

Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-507/18)

(2018/C 392/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, S. Horrenberger and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in the conformity clearance procedure concerning support for bananas, in that it misinterpreted the notion of ‘marketing’ of green bananas eligible for support from the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) applicable to Guadeloupe and Martinique.

First, the applicant claims that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion misconstrued the scope of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector (OJ 2011, L 336, p. 23).

Secondly, it submits that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion is based on a misapplication of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/33

---

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

(Case T-520/18)

(2018/C 392/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC PARTNERS — European Union trade mark No 3 808 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2185/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/34

---

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

(Case T-521/18)

(2018/C 392/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/35

---

Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

(Case T-522/18)

(2018/C 392/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AUREL BGC — Application for registration No 11 092 707

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2194/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the application should be rejected for specific services in classes 35 and 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the application should be rejected for specific services in classes 35 and 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/36

---

Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

(Case T-523/18)

(2018/C 392/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BGCPRO — Application for registration No 9 573 965

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2544/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

| — | alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/37

---

Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)

(Case T-532/18)

(2018/C 392/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1333223-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 in Case R 1197/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision or alter it by dismissing the appeal of Refan Bulgaria OOD against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 10 April 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision or alter it by dismissing the appeal of Refan Bulgaria OOD against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 10 April 2017;

| — | order EUIPO and Refan Bulgaria OOD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Aroma Essence Ltd in the proceedings before the General court and before the Third Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Refan Bulgaria OOD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Aroma Essence Ltd in the proceedings before the General court and before the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principle of sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of sound administration;

| — | Infringement of Articles 53(1)(2) and 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Articles 28(1)(b)(i)(v)(vi), 30(1) and 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 53(1)(2) and 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Articles 28(1)(b)(i)(v)(vi), 30(1) and 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;

| — | Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration;

| — | Infringement of Articles 59, 60(1), 65(1)(b)(c) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and of Article 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 59, 60(1), 65(1)(b)(c) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and of Article 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/38

---

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

(Case T-534/18)

(2018/C 392/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

| — | Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

---

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/39

---

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

(Case T-535/18)

(2018/C 392/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’s’ — Application for registration No 3 263 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 60/2007-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute;

| — | Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

---