# Official Journal C 293/4 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 293 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 604 September 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 293

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 604 September 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 293/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 293/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 293/02 | Case C-60/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Right of access to documents held by European Union institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access — Article 4(3), first subparagraph — Protection of the decision-making process of those institutions — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Public interest in the disclosure of environmental information — Information communicated by the German authorities to the European Commission pertaining to installations situated on German territory and concerned by the Union legislation on the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Partial refusal of access) | 2 |
| 2017/C 293/03 | Case C-633/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport — Article 133 — Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT — Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law) | 3 |
| 2017/C 293/04 | Case C-651/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 58(2) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Exemption — Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation) | 3 |
| 2017/C 293/05 | Case C-701/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Transport — Definition of exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air — Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport) | 4 |
| 2017/C 293/06 | Case C-76/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47(1), (4) and (5) — Economic and financial standing of the tenderer — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2007/66/EC — Judicial review of a decision to exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy) | 5 |
| 2017/C 293/07 | Case C-89/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(3) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(5b) — Article 16 — Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems — Inadmissibility) | 6 |
| 2017/C 293/08 | Case C-129/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Articles 191 and 193 TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Applicability ratione materiae — Air pollution caused by illegal waste incineration — Polluter-pays principle — National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the polluter) | 6 |
| 2017/C 293/09 | Case C-133/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44/EC — Article 5(1) — Period of liability of the seller — Limitation period — Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Second-hand goods — Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability) | 7 |
| 2017/C 293/10 | Case C-151/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(c) — Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft — Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo) | 8 |
| 2017/C 293/11 | Case C-193/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Present and genuine threat — Concept — Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences) | 9 |
| 2017/C 293/12 | Case C-354/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 1, 2 and 6 — Equal treatment — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex — Occupational pension — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4.1 and 4.2 — Method for calculating acquired pension rights — Legislation of a Member State — Different treatment of part-time workers) | 9 |
| 2017/C 293/13 | Case C-368/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage) | 10 |
| 2017/C 293/14 | Case C-388/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-execution — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum) | 11 |
| 2017/C 293/15 | Case C-433/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 81 and 82 — Action for a declaration of non-infringement — Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled) | 11 |
| 2017/C 293/16 | Case C-231/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights | 12 |
| 2017/C 293/17 | Case C-293/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland | 12 |
| 2017/C 293/18 | Case C-294/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant | 14 |
| 2017/C 293/19 | Case C-326/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Others, Other party: Z | 16 |
| 2017/C 293/20 | Case C-330/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V. v Germanwings GmbH | 16 |
| 2017/C 293/21 | Case C-367/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2017 — S v EA and Others | 17 |
| 2017/C 293/22 | Case C-369/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Ahmed Shajin v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal | 19 |
| 2017/C 293/23 | Case C-388/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB | 19 |
| 2017/C 293/24 | Case C-392/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA | 20 |
| 2017/C 293/25 | Case C-399/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic | 20 |
| 2017/C 293/26 | Case C-404/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket | 21 |
| 2017/C 293/27 | Case C-416/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic | 22 |
| 2017/C 293/28 | Case C-419/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA | 23 |
| 2017/C 293/29 | Case C-427/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — European Commission v Ireland | 24 |
| 2017/C 293/30 | Case C-428/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission | 25 |
| 2017/C 293/31 | Case C-450/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2017 by the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15, Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank | 27 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 293/32 | Case T-644/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission (Financial aid — General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice for the period 2007-2013 — Specific Programme Civil Justice — Action for annulment — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Powers of the author of the act — Principle of sound administration — Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements — Partial reclassification of the action — Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Eligible costs) | 29 |
| 2017/C 293/33 | Case T-143/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 — Failings in the control system — Assessment of control samples — Burden of proof — Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 — On-the-spot checks — Key controls — Proportionality) | 29 |
| 2017/C 293/34 | Case T-287/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Export refunds — No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State — Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies — Proportionality) | 30 |
| 2017/C 293/35 | Case T-309/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Cafè) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Art’s Cafè — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 31 |
| 2017/C 293/36 | Case T-780/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark mediaexpert — Earlier national word mark mediaexpert — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Registration certificate for the earlier mark — Translation — Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations) | 31 |
| 2017/C 293/37 | Case T-812/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2017/C 293/38 | Case T-423/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the work of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council — Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement — No confirmatory decision — Inadmissibility) | 32 |
| 2017/C 293/39 | Case T-716/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 33 |
| 2017/C 293/40 | Case T-849/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency) | 34 |
| 2017/C 293/41 | Case T-883/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Poland v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency) | 34 |
| 2017/C 293/42 | Case T-130/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency) | 35 |
| 2017/C 293/43 | Case T-131/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS (Interim measures — EEAS — Recovery by offsetting — Application for interim measures — Financial loss — Duty of care — No urgency) | 35 |
| 2017/C 293/44 | Case T-244/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission (Interim measures — Fishing vessel — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization — Admissibility — Application for interim measures — Lack of interest) | 36 |
| 2017/C 293/45 | Case T-392/17: Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission | 36 |
| 2017/C 293/46 | Case T-400/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission | 37 |
| 2017/C 293/47 | Case T-421/17: Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament | 38 |
| 2017/C 293/48 | Case T-422/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO | 38 |
| 2017/C 293/49 | Case T-443/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission | 39 |
| 2017/C 293/50 | Case T-86/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle) | 40 |
| 2017/C 293/51 | Case T-88/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a radiator grille) | 40 |
| 2017/C 293/52 | Case T-38/17: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament | 40 |
| 2017/C 293/53 | Case T-203/17: Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission | 41 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 293/02

Case C-60/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Right of access to documents held by European Union institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access — Article 4(3), first subparagraph — Protection of the decision-making process of those institutions — Environment — Aarhus Convention — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Public interest in the disclosure of environmental information — Information communicated by the German authorities to the European Commission pertaining to installations situated on German territory and concerned by the Union legislation on the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Partial refusal of access)

2

2017/C 293/03

Case C-633/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport — Article 133 — Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT — Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law)

3

2017/C 293/04

Case C-651/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 58(2) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Exemption — Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation)

3

2017/C 293/05

Case C-701/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Transport — Definition of exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air — Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC — National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport)

4

2017/C 293/06

Case C-76/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47(1), (4) and (5) — Economic and financial standing of the tenderer — Directives 89/665/EEC and 2007/66/EC — Judicial review of a decision to exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy)

5

2017/C 293/07

Case C-89/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(3) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(5b) — Article 16 — Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems — Inadmissibility)

6

2017/C 293/08

Case C-129/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Articles 191 and 193 TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Applicability ratione materiae — Air pollution caused by illegal waste incineration — Polluter-pays principle — National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the polluter)

6

2017/C 293/09

Case C-133/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44/EC — Article 5(1) — Period of liability of the seller — Limitation period — Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Second-hand goods — Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability)

7

2017/C 293/10

Case C-151/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(c) — Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft — Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo)

8

2017/C 293/11

Case C-193/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Present and genuine threat — Concept — Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences)

9

2017/C 293/12

Case C-354/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 1, 2 and 6 — Equal treatment — Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex — Occupational pension — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4.1 and 4.2 — Method for calculating acquired pension rights — Legislation of a Member State — Different treatment of part-time workers)

9

2017/C 293/13

Case C-368/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident — Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage)

10

2017/C 293/14

Case C-388/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-execution — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum)

11

2017/C 293/15

Case C-433/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 81 and 82 — Action for a declaration of non-infringement — Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled)

11

2017/C 293/16

Case C-231/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights

12

2017/C 293/17

Case C-293/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

12

2017/C 293/18

Case C-294/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

14

2017/C 293/19

Case C-326/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Others, Other party: Z

16

2017/C 293/20

Case C-330/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V. v Germanwings GmbH

16

2017/C 293/21

Case C-367/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2017 — S v EA and Others

17

2017/C 293/22

Case C-369/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Ahmed Shajin v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

19

2017/C 293/23

Case C-388/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB

19

2017/C 293/24

Case C-392/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA

20

2017/C 293/25

Case C-399/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

20

2017/C 293/26

Case C-404/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket

21

2017/C 293/27

Case C-416/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic

22

2017/C 293/28

Case C-419/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA

23

2017/C 293/29

Case C-427/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — European Commission v Ireland

24

2017/C 293/30

Case C-428/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission

25

2017/C 293/31

Case C-450/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2017 by the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15, Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank

27

General Court

2017/C 293/32

Case T-644/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission (Financial aid — General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice for the period 2007-2013 — Specific Programme Civil Justice — Action for annulment — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Powers of the author of the act — Principle of sound administration — Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements — Partial reclassification of the action — Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Eligible costs)

29

2017/C 293/33

Case T-143/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 — Failings in the control system — Assessment of control samples — Burden of proof — Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 — On-the-spot checks — Key controls — Proportionality)

29

2017/C 293/34

Case T-287/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Export refunds — No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State — Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies — Proportionality)

30

2017/C 293/35

Case T-309/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Cafè) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Art’s Cafè — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

31

2017/C 293/36

Case T-780/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark mediaexpert — Earlier national word mark mediaexpert — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Registration certificate for the earlier mark — Translation — Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations)

31

2017/C 293/37

Case T-812/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

32

2017/C 293/38

Case T-423/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the work of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council — Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement — No confirmatory decision — Inadmissibility)

32

2017/C 293/39

Case T-716/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

33

2017/C 293/40

Case T-849/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

34

2017/C 293/41

Case T-883/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Poland v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

34

2017/C 293/42

Case T-130/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

35

2017/C 293/43

Case T-131/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS (Interim measures — EEAS — Recovery by offsetting — Application for interim measures — Financial loss — Duty of care — No urgency)

35

2017/C 293/44

Case T-244/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission (Interim measures — Fishing vessel — Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization — Admissibility — Application for interim measures — Lack of interest)

36

2017/C 293/45

Case T-392/17: Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission

36

2017/C 293/46

Case T-400/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission

37

2017/C 293/47

Case T-421/17: Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

38

2017/C 293/48

Case T-422/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO

38

2017/C 293/49

Case T-443/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

39

2017/C 293/50

Case T-86/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

40

2017/C 293/51

Case T-88/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a radiator grille)

40

2017/C 293/52

Case T-38/17: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

40

2017/C 293/53

Case T-203/17: Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission

41

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/1

---

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

(2017/C 293/01)

Last publication

OJ C 283, 28.8.2017

Past publications

OJ C 277, 21.8.2017

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017

OJ C 256, 7.8.2017

OJ C 249, 31.7.2017

OJ C 239, 24.7.2017

OJ C 231, 17.7.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-60/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Right of access to documents held by European Union institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions to the right of access - Article 4(3), first subparagraph - Protection of the decision-making process of those institutions - Environment - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Public interest in the disclosure of environmental information - Information communicated by the German authorities to the European Commission pertaining to installations situated on German territory and concerned by the Union legislation on the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Partial refusal of access))

(2017/C 293/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 December 2014, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission (T-476/12, not published, EU:T:2014:1059); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 December 2014, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission (T-476/12, not published, EU:T:2014:1059);

| 2) | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013 refusing full access to the list communicated by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission, under the procedure provided for in Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the extent that that document contains information relating to certain installations of Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, situated on German territory, relating to provisional allocations and activities and capacity levels in relation to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2005 and 2010, the efficiency of the installations and the annual emission quotas provisionally allocated for the period between 2013 and 2020; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013 refusing full access to the list communicated by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission, under the procedure provided for in Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to the extent that that document contains information relating to certain installations of Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, situated on German territory, relating to provisional allocations and activities and capacity levels in relation to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2005 and 2010, the efficiency of the installations and the annual emission quotas provisionally allocated for the period between 2013 and 2020;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH at first instance and in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH at first instance and in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-633/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport - Article 133 - Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT - Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law))

(2017/C 293/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: London Borough of Ealing

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The second paragraph of Article 133 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from providing that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to bodies governed by public law that supply services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, even though, on the one hand, on 1 January 1989 that Member State did not apply VAT to all those supplies of services and, on the other, the supplies of services at issue were not exempted from VAT before the requirement of compliance with that condition was imposed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The second paragraph of Article 133 of Council Directive 2006/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from providing that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to bodies governed by public law that supply services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, even though, on the one hand, on 1 January 1989 that Member State did not apply VAT to all those supplies of services and, on the other, the supplies of services at issue were not exempted from VAT before the requirement of compliance with that condition was imposed.

| 2. | The second paragraph of Article 133 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where that legislation provides that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to non-profit making organisations governed by public law making supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, but fails also to apply that condition to non-profit making organisations other than those governed by public law that make such supplies of services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second paragraph of Article 133 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where that legislation provides that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to non-profit making organisations governed by public law making supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, but fails also to apply that condition to non-profit making organisations other than those governed by public law that make such supplies of services.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others

(Case C-651/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 58(2) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Exemption - Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation))

(2017/C 293/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents), Assogalvanica, Ecometal, Comité européen des traitements de surfaces (CETS) and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

(Case C-701/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Transport - Definition of ‘exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provisions of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air’ - Directives 2004/17/EC and 96/67/EC - National legislation which does not require a tendering procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation of areas within an airport))

(2017/C 293/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

Intervening party: Beta-Trans SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not require a public selection procedure to be conducted prior to the allocation, including a temporary allocation, of areas within airports to be used for the provision of groundhandling services for which no remuneration is to be paid by the manager of the airport.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

(Case C-76/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47(1), (4) and (5) - Economic and financial standing of the tenderer - Directives 89/665/EEC and 2007/66/EC - Judicial review of a decision to exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))

(2017/C 293/06)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ingsteel spol. s r. o., Metrostav a.s.

Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

Intervener: Slovenský futbalový zväz

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 47(1)(a) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority may exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure on the ground that it does not fulfil the criterion regarding economic and financial standing laid down in the contract notice with respect to the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the period of performance of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 47(1)(a) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority may exclude a tenderer from a tendering procedure on the ground that it does not fulfil the criterion regarding economic and financial standing laid down in the contract notice with respect to the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the period of performance of the contract.

| 2. | Article 47(5) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, when a contract notice requires the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the duration of the performance of the contract, the fact that the banks approached by the tenderer consider themselves unable to provide the tenderer with a statement in the terms specified by the contract notice may constitute a ‘valid reason’, within the meaning of that article, allowing the tenderer, where appropriate, to prove its economic and financial standing by any other document considered appropriate by the contracting authority, provided that it was objectively impossible for the tenderer to provide the references required by the contracting authority, which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 47(5) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, when a contract notice requires the provision of a statement given by a bank undertaking to grant credit in the amount specified in the contract notice and to guarantee that that amount will be available to the tenderer throughout the duration of the performance of the contract, the fact that the banks approached by the tenderer consider themselves unable to provide the tenderer with a statement in the terms specified by the contract notice may constitute a ‘valid reason’, within the meaning of that article, allowing the tenderer, where appropriate, to prove its economic and financial standing by any other document considered appropriate by the contracting authority, provided that it was objectively impossible for the tenderer to provide the references required by the contracting authority, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2017.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa

(Case C-89/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(5b) - Article 16 - Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/07)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radosław Szoja

Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

Intervening parties: WEBUNG, ebung s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the national legislation applicable under that provision to a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who normally pursues an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States, the requirements laid down in Article 14(5b) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-129/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Articles 191 and 193 TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Applicability ratione materiae - Air pollution caused by illegal waste incineration - Polluter-pays principle - National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the polluter))

(2017/C 293/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft.

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, read in the light of Articles 191 and 193 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent that the situation in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35 — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — such provisions do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which identifies another category of persons who, in addition to those using the land on which unlawful pollution was produced, share joint liability for the environmental damage, namely the owners of that land, without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established, provided that such legislation complies with the general principles of EU law, all relevant provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties and of the acts of secondary law of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, read in the light of Articles 191 and 193 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent that the situation in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35 — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — such provisions do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which identifies another category of persons who, in addition to those using the land on which unlawful pollution was produced, share joint liability for the environmental damage, namely the owners of that land, without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established, provided that such legislation complies with the general principles of EU law, all relevant provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties and of the acts of secondary law of the European Union.

| 2. | Article 16 of Directive 2004/35 and Article 193 TFEU must be interpreted, to the extent that the situation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35, as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the owners of land on which unlawful pollution has been produced are not only held to be jointly liable, alongside the persons using that land, for such environmental damage, but may also have fines imposed on them by the competent national authority, provided that such legislation is appropriate for the purpose of contributing to the attainment of the objective of more stringent protection and that the methods for determining the amount of the fine do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, this being a matter for the national court to establish. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 16 of Directive 2004/35 and Article 193 TFEU must be interpreted, to the extent that the situation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35, as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the owners of land on which unlawful pollution has been produced are not only held to be jointly liable, alongside the persons using that land, for such environmental damage, but may also have fines imposed on them by the competent national authority, provided that such legislation is appropriate for the purpose of contributing to the attainment of the objective of more stringent protection and that the methods for determining the amount of the fine do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, this being a matter for the national court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA

(Case C-133/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Directive 1999/44/EC - Article 5(1) - Period of liability of the seller - Limitation period - Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) - Second-hand goods - Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability))

(2017/C 293/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Ferenschild

Defendant: JPC Motor SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State which allows the limitation period for action by the consumer to be shorter than two years from the time of delivery of the goods where the Member State has made use of the option given by the latter of those two provisions, and the seller and consumer have agreed on a period of liability of the seller of less than two years, namely a one-year period, for the second-hand goods concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-151/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(c) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of navigation within European Union waters and to produce electricity on board a craft - Fuel used by a ship to sail from the place where it was built to the port of another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo))

(2017/C 293/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down by that provision applies to fuel used to sail a ship, without cargo, from a port of a Member State, in the present case that where that ship was built, to a port of another Member State in order to take on cargo to be transported to a port of a third Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down by that provision applies to fuel used to sail a ship, without cargo, from a port of a Member State, in the present case that where that ship was built, to a port of another Member State in order to take on cargo to be transported to a port of a third Member State.

| 2. | Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the exemption laid down by that provision on the ground that the supply of energy products for a ship was carried out without complying with the formal requirements laid down by that legislation, even though that supply is in accordance with all the conditions for application laid down by that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the exemption laid down by that provision on the ground that the supply of energy products for a ship was carried out without complying with the formal requirements laid down by that legislation, even though that supply is in accordance with all the conditions for application laid down by that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-193/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) - Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security - Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society - Present and genuine threat - Concept - Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences))

(2017/C 293/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden — Germany) — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH

(Case C-354/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 1, 2 and 6 - Equal treatment - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex - Occupational pension - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4.1 and 4.2 - Method for calculating acquired pension rights - Legislation of a Member State - Different treatment of part-time workers))

(2017/C 293/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Kleinsteuber

Defendant: Mars GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended, and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of an occupational pension, distinguishes between employment income falling below the ceiling for the calculation of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income above that ceiling, and which does not treat income from part-time employment by calculating first the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment, then determining the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling and finally applying that proportion to the reduced income from part-time employment. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended, and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of an occupational pension, distinguishes between employment income falling below the ceiling for the calculation of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income above that ceiling, and which does not treat income from part-time employment by calculating first the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment, then determining the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling and finally applying that proportion to the reduced income from part-time employment.

| 2) | Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of the occupational pension of an employee who has accumulated full-time and part-time employment periods, determines a uniform rate of activity for the total duration of the employment relationship, in so far as that calculation method of the pension does not violate the pro rata temporis rule. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, in calculating the amount of the occupational pension of an employee who has accumulated full-time and part-time employment periods, determines a uniform rate of activity for the total duration of the employment relationship, in so far as that calculation method of the pension does not violate the pro rata temporis rule. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.

| 3) | Articles 1 and 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an occupational pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio between (i) the employee’s length of service and (ii) the length of the period between taking up employment in the undertaking and the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme, and in so doing applies a maximum limit of reckonable years of service. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Articles 1 and 2 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for an occupational pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio between (i) the employee’s length of service and (ii) the length of the period between taking up employment in the undertaking and the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme, and in so doing applies a maximum limit of reckonable years of service.

---

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Case C-368/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident - Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage))

(2017/C 293/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Assens Havn

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-388/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-execution - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum))

(2017/C 293/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Sampol Pucurull and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 11 December 2014 in Commission v Spain (C-576/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2430) by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 20 September 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 11 December 2014 in Commission v Spain (C-576/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2430) by the expiry of the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice sent by the European Commission, namely 20 September 2015, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

| 2) | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 million. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 3 million.

| 3) | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl

(Case C-433/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 81 and 82 - Action for a declaration of non-infringement - Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled))

(2017/C 293/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

Defendant: Acacia Srl

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission in the alternative to other objections of procedure raised in the same submission, cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised, and therefore does not lead to prorogation of jurisdiction pursuant to that article. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission in the alternative to other objections of procedure raised in the same submission, cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised, and therefore does not lead to prorogation of jurisdiction pursuant to that article.

| 2) | Article 82 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted to the effect that actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of that regulation must, when the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and with the exception of the cases of litis pendens and related actions referred to in those regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 82 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted to the effect that actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of that regulation must, when the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and with the exception of the cases of litis pendens and related actions referred to in those regulations.

| 3) | The rule on jurisdiction in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The rule on jurisdiction in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

| 4) | The rule on jurisdiction set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement of a Community design, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for a declaration of non-infringement is allowed. |
| --- | --- |

4)

The rule on jurisdiction set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement of a Community design, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for a declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/12

---

Appeal brought on 3 May 2017 by Vatseva against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 April 2017 in Case T-920/16: Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-231/17 P)

(2017/C 293/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vatseva (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

By order of 6 July 2017 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

(Case C-293/17)

(2017/C 293/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu

Defendants: College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an activity which is not covered by the concept of ‘project’ as referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ... because it is not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings be a project as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ... because the activity may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an activity which is not covered by the concept of ‘project’ as referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ... because it is not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings be a project as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ... because the activity may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site?

| 2. | If it is assumed that the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface is a project, and in the event that it was carried out lawfully before Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... became applicable to a Natura 2000 site, and that it is still being carried out, must it then be assessed to be one and the same project, even if the fertilising did not always take place on the same tracts of land, in the same quantities and using the same techniques?
  Is it relevant, for the purposes of the assessment of whether this constitutes one and the same project, that the nitrogen deposition caused by the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface did not increase after Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... became applicable to the Natura 2000 site? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is assumed that the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface is a project, and in the event that it was carried out lawfully before Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... became applicable to a Natura 2000 site, and that it is still being carried out, must it then be assessed to be one and the same project, even if the fertilising did not always take place on the same tracts of land, in the same quantities and using the same techniques?

Is it relevant, for the purposes of the assessment of whether this constitutes one and the same project, that the nitrogen deposition caused by the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface did not increase after Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... became applicable to the Natura 2000 site?

| 3. | Does Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... preclude legislation which provides that an activity which is inextricably linked to a project and which must therefore also be assessed to be a project, such as the grazing of cattle by a dairy farm, is exempted from the permit requirement, with the result that no individual authorisation is required for that activity, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted?






  3(a) | Does Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... preclude legislation which provides that a certain category of projects, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, is exempted from the permit requirement and is thus permitted without individual authorisation, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... preclude legislation which provides that an activity which is inextricably linked to a project and which must therefore also be assessed to be a project, such as the grazing of cattle by a dairy farm, is exempted from the permit requirement, with the result that no individual authorisation is required for that activity, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted?

3(a)

Does Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... preclude legislation which provides that a certain category of projects, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, is exempted from the permit requirement and is thus permitted without individual authorisation, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted?

| 4. | Does the appropriate assessment which formed the basis of the exemption from the permit requirement for the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, which was based on the actual and expected extent and intensity of those activities, and the outcome of which is that on average an increase in nitrogen deposition by those activities can be ruled out, meet the requirements which Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... lays down in that regard?






  4(a) | Is it important in this regard that there is a connection between the exemption from the permit requirement and the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 (Integrated Approach to Nitrogen 2015-2021; ‘the PAS’) which is premised on a decrease in the total nitrogen deposition in respect of nitrogen-sensitive ecological features in the Natura 2000 sites, and that deposition development in the Natura 2000 sites is monitored annually in the context of the PAS, and that, if the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, any necessary adjustments are made? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Does the appropriate assessment which formed the basis of the exemption from the permit requirement for the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, which was based on the actual and expected extent and intensity of those activities, and the outcome of which is that on average an increase in nitrogen deposition by those activities can be ruled out, meet the requirements which Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... lays down in that regard?

4(a)

Is it important in this regard that there is a connection between the exemption from the permit requirement and the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 (Integrated Approach to Nitrogen 2015-2021; ‘the PAS’) which is premised on a decrease in the total nitrogen deposition in respect of nitrogen-sensitive ecological features in the Natura 2000 sites, and that deposition development in the Natura 2000 sites is monitored annually in the context of the PAS, and that, if the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, any necessary adjustments are made?

| 5. | May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ..., which was made for a programme such as the PAS, take account of the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?






  5(a) | If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment for a programme if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ..., which was made for a programme such as the PAS, take account of the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?

5(a)

If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment for a programme if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the implementation and the outcomes of those measures be monitored and, if it transpires that the effects are less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

| 6. | May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the PAS applies be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?
  Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made? |
| --- | --- |

6.

May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the PAS applies be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?

Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

| 7. | May restoration measures taken in the context of a programme such as the PAS and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats be regarded as protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels and Others, C-521/12, EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?






  7(a) | If Question 7 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they had not yet been implemented and their positive effect had not yet been achieved? |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

May restoration measures taken in the context of a programme such as the PAS and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats be regarded as protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels and Others, C-521/12, EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ...?

7(a)

If Question 7 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they had not yet been implemented and their positive effect had not yet been achieved?

Is it important in that respect, assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best scientific knowledge in that regard, that the implementation and the results of the measures be monitored, and, if this indicates that the results are less favourable than assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments take place if necessary?

| 8. | Is the power to impose obligations referred to in Article 2.4 of the Wet natuurbescherming (Netherlands Law on Nature Conservation), which the competent authority must apply if, having regard to the conservation objectives, a Natura 2000 site so requires, an adequate preventive instrument in order to be able to implement Article 6(2) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... in respect of the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Is the power to impose obligations referred to in Article 2.4 of the Wet natuurbescherming (Netherlands Law on Nature Conservation), which the competent authority must apply if, having regard to the conservation objectives, a Natura 2000 site so requires, an adequate preventive instrument in order to be able to implement Article 6(2) of ... Directive 92/43/EEC ... in respect of the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

(Case C-294/17)

(2017/C 293/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel

Defendant: College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,‘the Habitats Directive’) preclude legislation which exempts from the permit requirement projects and other operations causing nitrogen deposition which do not exceed a threshold value or a limit value, and are therefore permitted without individual approval, proceeding on the assumption that the effect of all projects and other operations taken together which could make use of the legislation, have been appropriately assessed before the adoption of the legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,‘the Habitats Directive’) preclude legislation which exempts from the permit requirement projects and other operations causing nitrogen deposition which do not exceed a threshold value or a limit value, and are therefore permitted without individual approval, proceeding on the assumption that the effect of all projects and other operations taken together which could make use of the legislation, have been appropriately assessed before the adoption of the legislation?

| 2. | Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206) preclude an appropriate assessment for a programme in which a certain total amount of nitrogen deposition is assessed, being used as the basis for granting an authorisation (individual approval) for a project or other operation which causes nitrogen deposition which fits within the room for deposition assessed in the context of the programme? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206) preclude an appropriate assessment for a programme in which a certain total amount of nitrogen deposition is assessed, being used as the basis for granting an authorisation (individual approval) for a project or other operation which causes nitrogen deposition which fits within the room for deposition assessed in the context of the programme?

| 3. | May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206), which is made for a programme such as the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021, take into account the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of that Directive?






  3(a) | If question 3 is answered in the affirmative: can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206), which is made for a programme such as the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021, take into account the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of that Directive?

3(a)

If question 3 is answered in the affirmative: can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of these measures based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the implementation and the results of those measures be monitored and, if it transpires that the effects are less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

| 4. | May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease of the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 applies, be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?
  Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease of the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 applies, be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?

Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

| 5. | May restoration measures taken in the context of the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats, be considered protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels, ECLI:EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?






  5(a) | If question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved? |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

May restoration measures taken in the context of the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats, be considered protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels, ECLI:EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?

5(a)

If question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

Is it important in that respect, assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best scientific knowledge in that regard, that the implementation and the results of the measures be monitored, and if that indicates that the results are less favorable than assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments take place if necessary?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Others, Other party: Z

(Case C-326/17)

(2017/C 293/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW), X, Y

Other party to the proceedings: Z

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 1999/37/EC (1) of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) applicable to motor vehicles which existed before 29 April 2009, the date on which the Member States had to apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Directive 2007/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 1999/37/EC (1) of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) applicable to motor vehicles which existed before 29 April 2009, the date on which the Member States had to apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Directive 2007/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)?

| 2. | Is a motor vehicle composed of essential parts which were manufactured before the application of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, on the other hand, of essential parts which were only added after the application of that Directive, a motor vehicle which already existed before the application of that Directive, or has such a motor vehicle only come into existence after the application of that Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a motor vehicle composed of essential parts which were manufactured before the application of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, on the other hand, of essential parts which were only added after the application of that Directive, a motor vehicle which already existed before the application of that Directive, or has such a motor vehicle only come into existence after the application of that Directive?

| 3. | Having regard to Article 3(2) of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), does the recognition obligation as referred to in Article 4 of that Directive apply in full if the data represented by certain Community codes (made compulsory under the Annexes to that Directive) have not been filled in, when those data could easily have been obtained? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Having regard to Article 3(2) of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), does the recognition obligation as referred to in Article 4 of that Directive apply in full if the data represented by certain Community codes (made compulsory under the Annexes to that Directive) have not been filled in, when those data could easily have been obtained?

| 4. | Is it permissible under Article 4 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) to recognise a registration certificate of another Member State, but to nevertheless submit the vehicle concerned to a technical check within the meaning of Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, if the vehicle fails to meet the technical requirements of the Member State, to impose the condition that the issue of the registration certificate will be refused? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it permissible under Article 4 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) to recognise a registration certificate of another Member State, but to nevertheless submit the vehicle concerned to a technical check within the meaning of Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, if the vehicle fails to meet the technical requirements of the Member State, to impose the condition that the issue of the registration certificate will be refused?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57.

(2)  OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 June 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V. v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-330/17)

(2017/C 293/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg e. V.

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the air fares for intra-Community air services to be indicated under the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) be indicated in a particular currency, in so far as they are not expressed in euro? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the air fares for intra-Community air services to be indicated under the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) be indicated in a particular currency, in so far as they are not expressed in euro?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  In which local currency may the prices referred to in Article 2(18) and the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 be indicated, where an air carrier established in a Member State (in the present case Germany) advertises and offers an air service with a point of departure in another Member State (in this case the United Kingdom) to a consumer on the internet?
  In this respect, does it depend on whether an internet address with a country-specific top-level domain (in this case: www.germanwings.de) that refers to the Member State in which the air carrier is established and in which the consumer resides is used for the offer?
  Is it relevant that all or the overwhelming majority of air carriers indicate the prices in question in the local currency used in the place of departure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

In which local currency may the prices referred to in Article 2(18) and the second and third sentences of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 be indicated, where an air carrier established in a Member State (in the present case Germany) advertises and offers an air service with a point of departure in another Member State (in this case the United Kingdom) to a consumer on the internet?

In this respect, does it depend on whether an internet address with a country-specific top-level domain (in this case: www.germanwings.de) that refers to the Member State in which the air carrier is established and in which the consumer resides is used for the offer?

Is it relevant that all or the overwhelming majority of air carriers indicate the prices in question in the local currency used in the place of departure?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation in air services in the Community, OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2017 — S v EA and Others

(Case C-367/17)

(2017/C 293/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Opponents: EA, EB, EC

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the decision on an application lodged with the competent national authority (in this case, the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (German Patent and Trade Mark Office)) on 15 February 2007 for an amendment to the specification of a protected geographical indication to the effect that the slicing and packaging of the product (in this case, Schwarzwälder Schinken) may take place only in the production area to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006 (1), which was in force at the time of the application, or on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012 (2), which is the legislation currently in force at the time of the decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the decision on an application lodged with the competent national authority (in this case, the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (German Patent and Trade Mark Office)) on 15 February 2007 for an amendment to the specification of a protected geographical indication to the effect that the slicing and packaging of the product (in this case, Schwarzwälder Schinken) may take place only in the production area to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006 (1), which was in force at the time of the application, or on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012 (2), which is the legislation currently in force at the time of the decision?

| 2. | If the decision is to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012 which is currently in force:






  2.1 | (a) | Does the fact that incorrect transportation of the product to other areas for the purposes of further processing (slicing and packaging) may have a harmful effect on its authentic flavour, authentic quality and durability represent, from the point of view of quality assurance of the product, a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 such that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the decision is to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012 which is currently in force:

2.1

(a)

Does the fact that incorrect transportation of the product to other areas for the purposes of further processing (slicing and packaging) may have a harmful effect on its authentic flavour, authentic quality and durability represent, from the point of view of quality assurance of the product, a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 such that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area?

| (b) | Do requirements for slicing and packaging set out in the specification which do not go beyond the applicable food hygiene standards represent, from the point of view of quality assurance of the product, a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 such that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Do requirements for slicing and packaging set out in the specification which do not go beyond the applicable food hygiene standards represent, from the point of view of quality assurance of the product, a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 such that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area?

| 2.2 | (a) | Can a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 be seen in principle, for the rule laid down in the specification for a protected geographical indication that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area, in the fact that the (producer) controls that are then possible in that regard in the production area (Article 7(1)(g), in conjunction with Article 36(3)(a) and Article 37, of Regulation No 1151/2012) offer a greater frequency of controls and generally a better guarantee than (abuse) controls for the purposes of Article 36(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 38, of Regulation No 1151/2012? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2

(a)

Can a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 be seen in principle, for the rule laid down in the specification for a protected geographical indication that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area, in the fact that the (producer) controls that are then possible in that regard in the production area (Article 7(1)(g), in conjunction with Article 36(3)(a) and Article 37, of Regulation No 1151/2012) offer a greater frequency of controls and generally a better guarantee than (abuse) controls for the purposes of Article 36(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 38, of Regulation No 1151/2012?

| (b) | If subquestion (a) is answered in the negative:
  Is a different assessment justified if the product in question is also a product with strong supra-regional demand which is sliced and packaged to a large extent outside the production area, even if specific instances of improper use of the protected geographical indication for the purposes of Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 have not been established to date? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If subquestion (a) is answered in the negative:

Is a different assessment justified if the product in question is also a product with strong supra-regional demand which is sliced and packaged to a large extent outside the production area, even if specific instances of improper use of the protected geographical indication for the purposes of Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 have not been established to date?

| 2.3 | Can a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 be seen, for the rule laid down in a specification for a protected geographical indication that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area, in the fact that otherwise the traceability of the further processed product cannot be guaranteed with certainty?
  In this context, is it relevant that:






  (a) | the traceability of food, in particular that of animal origin, must be guaranteed, in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (3), in conjunction with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin (4); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3

Can a sufficient product-specific justification within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012 be seen, for the rule laid down in a specification for a protected geographical indication that slicing and packaging may take place only in the production area, in the fact that otherwise the traceability of the further processed product cannot be guaranteed with certainty?

In this context, is it relevant that:

(a)

the traceability of food, in particular that of animal origin, must be guaranteed, in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (3), in conjunction with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin (4);

| (b) | the traceability of the product must be guaranteed through the participation of the processors of the product in legally voluntary but de facto compulsory private safeguard systems? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the traceability of the product must be guaranteed through the participation of the processors of the product in legally voluntary but de facto compulsory private safeguard systems?

| 2.4 | If any of Questions 1 to 3 is answered in the affirmative:
  Can or must it be laid down in a specification for a protected geographical indication — as a less onerous measure compared to the compulsory shifting back of slicing and packaging to the production area — that the processors of the product established outside the production area must be subject in that regard to a control carried out by the authorities and bodies competent under the specification for the controls in the production area (Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 1151/2012)? |
| --- | --- |

2.4

If any of Questions 1 to 3 is answered in the affirmative:

Can or must it be laid down in a specification for a protected geographical indication — as a less onerous measure compared to the compulsory shifting back of slicing and packaging to the production area — that the processors of the product established outside the production area must be subject in that regard to a control carried out by the authorities and bodies competent under the specification for the controls in the production area (Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 1151/2012)?

| 3. | If the decision is to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006 (see Question 1), the referring court asks that the questions set out in 2. above be answered on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006, in particular Article 4(2)(e) of that regulation in conjunction with Article 8 and recital 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (5). |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the decision is to be taken on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006 (see Question 1), the referring court asks that the questions set out in 2. above be answered on the basis of Regulation No 510/2006, in particular Article 4(2)(e) of that regulation in conjunction with Article 8 and recital 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (5).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1.

(4)  OJ 2011 L 242, p. 2.

(5)  OJ 2006 L 369, p. 1.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 June 2017 — Ahmed Shajin v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-369/17)

(2017/C 293/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ahmed Shajin

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Question referred

Does it follow from the expression ‘that he or she has committed a serious crime’ used in Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, that the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of the particular Member State may constitute the sole criterion to determine whether the person claiming subsidiary protection may be excluded from it?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB

(Case C-388/17)

(2017/C 293/23)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Defendant: SJ AB

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a network in the field of transport services when transport services on a State-administered rail network for national and international rail traffic are provided in accordance with provisions in national legislation which implement Directive 2012/34 (2), which involve the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity on the basis of requests from railway companies and a requirement that all requests are to be met so far as possible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a network in the field of transport services when transport services on a State-administered rail network for national and international rail traffic are provided in accordance with provisions in national legislation which implement Directive 2012/34 (2), which involve the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity on the basis of requests from railway companies and a requirement that all requests are to be met so far as possible?

| 2. | Must the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 be interpreted as meaning that an activity which is carried out by a railway company such as is referred to in Directive 2012/34 and which entails the provision of transport services to the public on a rail network constitutes the provision or operation of a network as referred to in that provision of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 be interpreted as meaning that an activity which is carried out by a railway company such as is referred to in Directive 2012/34 and which entails the provision of transport services to the public on a rail network constitutes the provision or operation of a network as referred to in that provision of the directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (Utilities Directive) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA

(Case C-392/17)

(2017/C 293/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicatul Energia Oradea

Defendant: SC Termoelectrica SA

Question referred

Are the provisions of Order No 50/1990, as interpreted by judgment No 9/2016 given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) on a matter of public policy — a judgment binding on courts of law, according to which occupations classified in groups I and II are strictly and rigorously limited to those set out in Annex 1 and 2 of that order, and the courts may not extend the provisions of that order to include other similar cases, with the consequence that those former workers cannot receive the pension benefits owed as a result of the hard working conditions in which they have carried out their work — compatible with Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and with the provisions of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and successive specific directives?

---

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

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/20

---

Action brought on 3 July 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-399/17)

(2017/C 293/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure that TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material shipped from the Czech Republic to Katowice, Poland, was transported back to the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24(2) and Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure that TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material shipped from the Czech Republic to Katowice, Poland, was transported back to the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24(2) and Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1);

| — | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material that was transported from the Czech Republic to Poland, which comes from hazardous wastes from a waste dump (the Ostramo lagoons), is deposited at another site in the Czech Republic and is classified as waste tar from refining, distilling or pyrolytic treatment of organic materials, is, according to the Polish authorities, waste falling within Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (‘the Waste Shipments Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The TPS-NOLO (Geobal) material that was transported from the Czech Republic to Poland, which comes from hazardous wastes from a waste dump (the Ostramo lagoons), is deposited at another site in the Czech Republic and is classified as waste tar from refining, distilling or pyrolytic treatment of organic materials, is, according to the Polish authorities, waste falling within Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (‘the Waste Shipments Regulation’).

| 2. | In view of the fact that the Czech Republic disputes the classification of the substance in question as waste, on the ground of the registration of the material under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (2) (‘REACH’), a conflict situation has arisen, which is dealt with by Article 28(1) of the Waste Shipments Regulation, by providing that the material in question is to be treated as if it were waste. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of the fact that the Czech Republic disputes the classification of the substance in question as waste, on the ground of the registration of the material under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (2) (‘REACH’), a conflict situation has arisen, which is dealt with by Article 28(1) of the Waste Shipments Regulation, by providing that the material in question is to be treated as if it were waste.

| 3. | Registration of the material in accordance with registration under REACH does not ensure that use of the substance will not lead to a harmful overall effect on the environment or human health, or that the substance automatically ceases to be waste. Where there is no national decision that the substance in question has reached a state in which waste ceases to be waste, the registration of that substance under REACH may not be regarded as valid on the basis of Article 2(2) of REACH. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Registration of the material in accordance with registration under REACH does not ensure that use of the substance will not lead to a harmful overall effect on the environment or human health, or that the substance automatically ceases to be waste. Where there is no national decision that the substance in question has reached a state in which waste ceases to be waste, the registration of that substance under REACH may not be regarded as valid on the basis of Article 2(2) of REACH.

| 4. | As the substance in question was transported across the frontier without notification, the transport is to be regarded as an ‘illegal shipment’ under Article 2(35)(a) of the Waste Shipments Regulation. In that case, the competent authority of dispatch is to obtain information by an appropriate procedure to ensure that the waste in question is taken back in accordance with Article 24(2) of the regulation, which the Czech Republic unjustifiably refuses to do. That obligation is not precluded by Article 128 of REACH, which guarantees the free movement of substances, mixtures or articles within the meaning of Article 3 of REACH, since waste is expressly excluded from the scope of that regulation (see Article 2(2) of REACH). |
| --- | --- |

4.

As the substance in question was transported across the frontier without notification, the transport is to be regarded as an ‘illegal shipment’ under Article 2(35)(a) of the Waste Shipments Regulation. In that case, the competent authority of dispatch is to obtain information by an appropriate procedure to ensure that the waste in question is taken back in accordance with Article 24(2) of the regulation, which the Czech Republic unjustifiably refuses to do. That obligation is not precluded by Article 128 of REACH, which guarantees the free movement of substances, mixtures or articles within the meaning of Article 3 of REACH, since waste is expressly excluded from the scope of that regulation (see Article 2(2) of REACH).

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2017 — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-404/17)

(2017/C 293/26)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö, migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Question referred

Is an application in which the applicant’s information is deemed to be reliable and so is taken as the basis for the assessment, but insufficient to form the basis of a need for international protection on the ground that the country-of-origin information suggests that there is acceptable protection, to be regarded as clearly unfounded under Article 31(8) of the recast Asylum Procedure Directive? (1)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/22

---

Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-416/17)

(2017/C 293/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in maintaining the effects of the provisions aimed at eliminating double economic taxation of the dividends that allow a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they come from a subsidiary established in France, but not to offer that option if those dividends originate from a subsidiary established in another Member State, since, in that case, that legislation does not give entitlement to a tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends by that subsidiary in so far as, according to the case-law of the Conseil d’État, applications are granted for reimbursement of advance payments made in breach of EU law within the meaning of the judgment of the Court in Case C-310/09 Accor
   (1), subject to the following three restrictions:






  — | the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by the refusal to take into account taxation suffered by sub-subsidiaries established outside France; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that, in maintaining the effects of the provisions aimed at eliminating double economic taxation of the dividends that allow a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they come from a subsidiary established in France, but not to offer that option if those dividends originate from a subsidiary established in another Member State, since, in that case, that legislation does not give entitlement to a tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends by that subsidiary in so far as, according to the case-law of the Conseil d’État, applications are granted for reimbursement of advance payments made in breach of EU law within the meaning of the judgment of the Court in Case C-310/09 Accor
   (1), subject to the following three restrictions:

—

the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by the refusal to take into account taxation suffered by sub-subsidiaries established outside France;

| — | the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by disproportionate evidentiary requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by disproportionate evidentiary requirements;

| — | the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by limiting the tax credit to the amount of the dividend redistributed in France which comes from a subsidiary established outside France, and whereas the Conseil d’État, administrative court adjudicating at last instance, established those restrictions without asking the Court of Justice for the purposes of determining the compatibility of those restrictions with EU law, |
| --- | --- |

—

the right to reimbursement of the advance payment illegally made is restricted by limiting the tax credit to the amount of the dividend redistributed in France which comes from a subsidiary established outside France, and whereas the Conseil d’État, administrative court adjudicating at last instance, established those restrictions without asking the Court of Justice for the purposes of determining the compatibility of those restrictions with EU law,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and in accordance with Articles 49, 63 and the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission complains that France, through the settled case-law of the Conseil d’État, its highest administrative court, refused to give full effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-310/09, Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique v Accor SA, in particular in imposing restrictions contrary to EU law for the reimbursement of a tax unduly levied, namely withholding tax.

In its judgment in Accor, handed down following a preliminary question, the Court of Justice found that the French tax rules seeking to eliminate economic double taxation of dividends maintained discrimination in respect of taxation of dividends which have their source in other EU Member States. The taxes which the Court has found to be contrary to EU law must thus be reimbursed.

The Commission considers that France is not complying with the judgment of the Court of Justice on three specific points:

| — | it does not take into account taxes already paid by non-French sub-subsidiaries; |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not take into account taxes already paid by non-French sub-subsidiaries;

| — | it maintains, in order to limit the right to reimbursement of the companies concerned, requirements regarding the evidence to be provided, not observing the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

it maintains, in order to limit the right to reimbursement of the companies concerned, requirements regarding the evidence to be provided, not observing the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice;

| — | it limits in an absolute manner the tax credit system to a third of the dividend redistributed by a non-French subsidiary. |
| --- | --- |

—

it limits in an absolute manner the tax credit system to a third of the dividend redistributed by a non-French subsidiary.

These violations are moreover due to the fact that the Conseil d’État failed to comply with its obligation to refer a question to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 in Case C-310/09, Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique v Accor SA, EU:C:2011:581.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/23

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA

(Case C-419/17 P)

(2017/C 293/28)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15,

| — | annul the decision of the ECHA of 12 December 2014, No ED/108/2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECHA of 12 December 2014, No ED/108/2014,

| — | order the ECHA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECHA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly.
  The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly. The appellant remains of the view that the decision of the ECHA was adopted ultra vires, since (i) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEHP under Article 57(c) of REACH by a new identification of that substance under Article 57(f) of REACH; (ii) the adoption of the decision of the ECHA was preceded by an unlawful procedure; and (iii) the decision of the ECHA circumvents the legally binding procedure laid down by the Council and the European Parliament for the adoption of generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly.

The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly. The appellant remains of the view that the decision of the ECHA was adopted ultra vires, since (i) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEHP under Article 57(c) of REACH by a new identification of that substance under Article 57(f) of REACH; (ii) the adoption of the decision of the ECHA was preceded by an unlawful procedure; and (iii) the decision of the ECHA circumvents the legally binding procedure laid down by the Council and the European Parliament for the adoption of generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties.

| 2. | The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.
  Where (i) the decision of the ECHA created an unclear, imprecise and unforeseeable legal situation, which makes it impossible for the appellant to find out the precise extent of the obligations imposed on it; (ii) there are no generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and (iii) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEPH under Article 57(c) of REACH by an identification of it under Article 57(f) of REACH, the General Court’s conclusion that the decision of the ECHA does not conflict with the principle of legal certainty is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.

Where (i) the decision of the ECHA created an unclear, imprecise and unforeseeable legal situation, which makes it impossible for the appellant to find out the precise extent of the obligations imposed on it; (ii) there are no generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and (iii) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEPH under Article 57(c) of REACH by an identification of it under Article 57(f) of REACH, the General Court’s conclusion that the decision of the ECHA does not conflict with the principle of legal certainty is incorrect.

| 3. | The General Court reviewed the decision of the ECHA in a manner conflicting with the requirements of judicial review of the decisions of EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court reviewed the decision of the ECHA in a manner conflicting with the requirements of judicial review of the decisions of EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence.

| 4. | As a consequence of the defects set out above, the General Court infringed the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair procedure, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As a consequence of the defects set out above, the General Court infringed the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair procedure, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/24

---

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-427/17)

(2017/C 293/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in 14 agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and 3(2) and Annex 1(A) and footnote 1of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in 14 agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and 3(2) and Annex 1(A) and footnote 1of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

| — | declare that, by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 25 agglomerations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 25 agglomerations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

| — | declare that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 21 agglomerations, be, before discharge into sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described by Article 4 and in accordance with the requirements of Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 21 agglomerations, be, before discharge into sensitive areas, made subject to more stringent treatment than that described by Article 4 and in accordance with the requirements of Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (3) as read in conjunction with the requirements of Article 10 and Annex 1(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC;

| — | declare that, by not ensuring that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants in the agglomerations of Arklow (IEAG_547) and Castlebridge (IEAG_515) is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorization, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 under Council Directive 91/271/EEC. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not ensuring that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants in the agglomerations of Arklow (IEAG_547) and Castlebridge (IEAG_515) is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorization, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 under Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC obliges the Member States to ensure that agglomerations above a certain size are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water. Where a Member State decides to operate a combined system of collection and treatment for both urban waste waters and rainwater runoff, then that system must be designed to ensure that the waters collected are retained and conducted for treatment, taking into account climatic conditions as well as seasonal variations. Based on the data received during the 7th and 8th Reporting Exercises under Article 15 of the Directive as well as the discussion with Ireland during the pre-litigation phase, the Commission is of the opinion that Ireland does not comply with that obligation for 14 agglomerations because of the lack of collecting system in place or because of excessive spills.

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC obliges the Member States to ensure that urban waste water from agglomerations above a certain size is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge. Furthermore, Article 4(3) of the Directive obliges the Member States to ensure that discharges from urban waste water treatment plants satisfy the requirements laid down in Annex I(B) to the Directive. Having assessed the data provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland does not comply with the requirements of Article 4 as regard 25 agglomerations due to the lack of a treatment plant, the inability of the treatment plant in place to treat the whole load generated by the agglomerations it serves, the non-compliance with Annex I(B) standards, or as a result of non-compliance with Article 3 of the Directive.

Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC further obliges the Member States to identify sensitive areas and to subject agglomeration above a certain size discharging in those areas to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4, in accordance with the requirements of Annex I(B). Having assessed the data provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland has failed to correctly apply Article 5 of the Directive in respect of 21 agglomerations.

Article 12 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC requires that competent authorities shall ensure that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorization. Based on the information provided by Ireland, the Commission considers that Ireland has failed to comply with the requirements of Article 12 as regard two agglomerations in which treatment plants operate without a valid licence.

---

(1)  OJ 1991, L 135, p. 40.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/25

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission

(Case C-428/17 P)

(2017/C 293/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside and/or vary the judgment of 4 May 2017, Meta Group v Commission, T-744/14, as being vitiated by error and legally unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside and/or vary the judgment of 4 May 2017, Meta Group v Commission, T-744/14, as being vitiated by error and legally unfounded;

| — | find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from grant contracts concluded in the framework of the CIP programme and the Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, totalling EUR 566 377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offsetting made in respect of the applicant’s claims; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from grant contracts concluded in the framework of the CIP programme and the Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, totalling EUR 566 377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offsetting made in respect of the applicant’s claims;

| — | consequently, order the Commission to pay the appellant that sum of EUR 566 377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the Commission to pay the appellant that sum of EUR 566 377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation;

| — | furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 815 000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offsetting. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 815 000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offsetting.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| I. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

  By rejecting the third plea in law, the contested judgment infringed the rules of the Belgian Civil Code and EU law as regards the binding nature of the contracts, in that it failed to recognise the mutually binding nature of the clause set out on page 47 of the Amendment to the Ecolink+ contract and disregarded the fact that the reference contained therein to a methodology annexed to the contract was not referring to the methodology proposed by Meta and sent to the Commission on 21.12.2009. |
| --- | --- |

I.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

By rejecting the third plea in law, the contested judgment infringed the rules of the Belgian Civil Code and EU law as regards the binding nature of the contracts, in that it failed to recognise the mutually binding nature of the clause set out on page 47 of the Amendment to the Ecolink+ contract and disregarded the fact that the reference contained therein to a methodology annexed to the contract was not referring to the methodology proposed by Meta and sent to the Commission on 21.12.2009.

| II. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

  By rejecting the fourth and fifth pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the principle of non-contradiction, the criteria of the FP6 Guide and the rules of the Belgian Civil Code as regards good faith in the performance of contracts, in that, despite describing the provisions set out in the FP6 Guide as non-binding, it applied them rigidly and unfailingly in the instant case before the court, specifically with regard to the relative costs of in-house consultants. |
| --- | --- |

II.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

By rejecting the fourth and fifth pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the principle of non-contradiction, the criteria of the FP6 Guide and the rules of the Belgian Civil Code as regards good faith in the performance of contracts, in that, despite describing the provisions set out in the FP6 Guide as non-binding, it applied them rigidly and unfailingly in the instant case before the court, specifically with regard to the relative costs of in-house consultants.

| III. | Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

  By rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the EU law principles of the right to have a case heard in its entirety and the right of defence, as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, in that it failed to consider the legal arguments set out by the appellant in its observations in the document entitled ‘Annex E.4’, lodged by the Commission only at the hearing, uncritically accepting what was argued by the other party and failing to give sufficient reasons for its own decision. |
| --- | --- |

III.

Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

By rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the EU law principles of the right to have a case heard in its entirety and the right of defence, as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, in that it failed to consider the legal arguments set out by the appellant in its observations in the document entitled ‘Annex E.4’, lodged by the Commission only at the hearing, uncritically accepting what was argued by the other party and failing to give sufficient reasons for its own decision.

| IV. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

  Furthermore, by rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the FP6 Guide and distorted the facts material to the proceedings, calculating erroneously and in a misleading manner the working time under the Bridge contract (in respect of which accounts were drawn up), that is to say, on the basis of the assumption shown here that a contracted service provider would have worked for eight consecutive hours every day of the month purely carrying out activities relating to the aforementioned contract. |
| --- | --- |

IV.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

Furthermore, by rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the FP6 Guide and distorted the facts material to the proceedings, calculating erroneously and in a misleading manner the working time under the Bridge contract (in respect of which accounts were drawn up), that is to say, on the basis of the assumption shown here that a contracted service provider would have worked for eight consecutive hours every day of the month purely carrying out activities relating to the aforementioned contract.

| V. | Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

  By rejecting the sixth plea in law, the judgment infringed the provisions of the Belgian Civil Code concerning the binding nature of contracts and the principle of good faith in the performance of contracts, in that it failed to recognise that the Commission’s conduct, in particular the drawing up of the Amendment, caused the appellant to have legitimate expectations that the methodology proposed by it would be accepted. |
| --- | --- |

V.

Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

By rejecting the sixth plea in law, the judgment infringed the provisions of the Belgian Civil Code concerning the binding nature of contracts and the principle of good faith in the performance of contracts, in that it failed to recognise that the Commission’s conduct, in particular the drawing up of the Amendment, caused the appellant to have legitimate expectations that the methodology proposed by it would be accepted.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/27

---

Appeal brought on 26 July 2017 by the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15, Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank v European Central Bank

(Case C-450/17 P)

(2017/C 293/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (represented by: A. Glos, T. Lübbig and M. Benzing, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 in Case T-122/15;

| — | annul the decision of the ECB of 5 January 2015 (ECB/SSM/15/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/3), ordering the effects of the substituted decision of the ECB of 1 September 2014 (ECB/SSM/14/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/1) to be maintained; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECB of 5 January 2015 (ECB/SSM/15/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/3), ordering the effects of the substituted decision of the ECB of 1 September 2014 (ECB/SSM/14/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/1) to be maintained;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to above and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to above and refer the case back to the General Court;

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

—

order the ECB to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of EU law in the interpretation and application of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation (1) and Article 70 of the SSM Framework Regulation (2)

  The General Court incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation. It incorrectly concluded that ‘particular circumstances’, which must lead to the classification of an entity as a less significant entity, exist only if direct supervision by the national authorities is better suited to achieving the aim of the SSM Regulation than direct supervision by the ECB. The General Court relied solely on the English language version of the SSM Framework Regulation in its interpretation and infringed the principle that all language versions are equally authentic. The General Court wrongly failed to interpret the standards in the light of superior law through the competence approach of the principle of proportionality. It incorrectly rejected a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of the facts of the case by the ECB and assessed as little as the ECB had done previously whether the appellant, by reason of the specific factual circumstances put forward by it, is to be classified as a less significant entity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation, due to ‘particular circumstances’. The General Court therefore infringed its obligation comprehensively to review the contested decision for errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of EU law in the interpretation and application of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation (1) and Article 70 of the SSM Framework Regulation (2)

The General Court incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation. It incorrectly concluded that ‘particular circumstances’, which must lead to the classification of an entity as a less significant entity, exist only if direct supervision by the national authorities is better suited to achieving the aim of the SSM Regulation than direct supervision by the ECB. The General Court relied solely on the English language version of the SSM Framework Regulation in its interpretation and infringed the principle that all language versions are equally authentic. The General Court wrongly failed to interpret the standards in the light of superior law through the competence approach of the principle of proportionality. It incorrectly rejected a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of the facts of the case by the ECB and assessed as little as the ECB had done previously whether the appellant, by reason of the specific factual circumstances put forward by it, is to be classified as a less significant entity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the SSM Regulation, in conjunction with Article 70(1) of the SSM Framework Regulation, due to ‘particular circumstances’. The General Court therefore infringed its obligation comprehensively to review the contested decision for errors of assessment.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the contested decision and an incorrect assessment of the requirements applicable to the statement of reasons
  The General Court distorted the reasoning of the contested decision and substituted its own reasoning for that of the ECB. Since it distorted the content of the contested decision, it disregarded the fact that the ECB did not respect the EU-law requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons: the reasoning of the contested decision is illogical and inherently contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the contested decision and an incorrect assessment of the requirements applicable to the statement of reasons

The General Court distorted the reasoning of the contested decision and substituted its own reasoning for that of the ECB. Since it distorted the content of the contested decision, it disregarded the fact that the ECB did not respect the EU-law requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons: the reasoning of the contested decision is illogical and inherently contradictory.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging procedural errors on the part of the General Court through the introduction of elements which are not the subject of these proceedings
  The judgment of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard and the principle of audi alteram partem. The grounds underlying the judgment introduced perspectives relevant to the decision which were not themselves discussed by the parties in the judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging procedural errors on the part of the General Court through the introduction of elements which are not the subject of these proceedings

The judgment of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard and the principle of audi alteram partem. The grounds underlying the judgment introduced perspectives relevant to the decision which were not themselves discussed by the parties in the judicial proceedings.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

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

---

General Court

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-644/14) (1)

((Financial aid - General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ - Action for annulment - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Powers of the author of the act - Principle of sound administration - Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements - Partial reclassification of the action - Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Eligible costs))

(2017/C 293/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented: initially by L. Tantalo, and subsequently by A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Estrada de Solà and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by J. Estrada de Solà and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision C(2014) 4485 final of the Commission of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of part of the financial contribution paid to the applicant under three grant agreements concluded in the context of the ‘Civil Justice’ specific programme and, second, based on Article 272 TFEU seeking an order directing the Commission to pay it the balance due to it under the three grant agreements in an amount of EUR 49 172,52 together with damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ADR Center SpA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs of that institution pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures, and to bear half of its own costs, including in relation to its costs pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ADR Center SpA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs of that institution pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures, and to bear half of its own costs, including in relation to its costs pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by ADR Center, including half of the costs of the latter pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by ADR Center, including half of the costs of the latter pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-143/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Spain - Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 - Failings in the control system - Assessment of control samples - Burden of proof - Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 - On-the-spot checks - Key controls - Proportionality))

(2017/C 293/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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 concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain following inquiry AA/2009/007/ES for the claim year 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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 concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain following inquiry AA/2009/007/ES for the claim year 2009;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality))

(2017/C 293/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, then M. Jacobs, L. Van den Broeck and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 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 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

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

2)

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Cafè)

(Case T-309/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Art’s Cafè - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 293/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cafés Pont, SL (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giordano Vini SpA (Diano d’Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1110/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Giordano Vini and Cafés Pont.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cafés Pont, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cafés Pont, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)

(Case T-780/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mediaexpert - Earlier national word mark mediaexpert - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Registration certificate for the earlier mark - Translation - Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 293/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2583/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. and Mediaexpert S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T-812/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the order (represented by: P. Fajardo, lawyer, J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and K. Bacon QC)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

| 3. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T-423/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council - Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement - No confirmatory decision - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Baquero Cruz and F. Erlbacher, then J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions allegedly contained, first, in the letter of 20 May 2016, and second, in the letter of 13 July 2016, responding to the requests for access to the documents of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’, submitted by the applicant on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order

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

1)

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2) | Mr Fabio De Masi shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Mr Fabio De Masi shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/33

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission

(Case T-716/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) and Pfizer Santé familiale (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Santé familiale shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Santé familiale shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission

(Case T-849/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation - Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements - Application for a stay of execution of a measure - Lack of any urgency))

(2017/C 293/40)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v Commission (T-849/16 R) is revoked. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v Commission (T-849/16 R) is revoked.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/34

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-883/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation - Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements - Application for a stay of execution of a measure - Lack of any urgency))

(2017/C 293/41)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kawnik and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The order of 23 December 2016 is revoked insofar as it relates to Case T-883/16 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 23 December 2016 is revoked insofar as it relates to Case T-883/16 R.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission

(Case T-130/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation - Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements - Application for a stay of execution of a measure - Lack of any urgency))

(2017/C 293/42)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC.

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.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Argus Security Projects v EEAS

(Case T-131/17 R)

((Interim measures - EEAS - Recovery by offsetting - Application for interim measures - Financial loss - Duty of care - No urgency))

(2017/C 293/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, and by B. Allemeersch, W. De Meester and G. Scraeyen, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures ordering, first, the suspension of operation of the Commission’s offsetting decisions, acting on behalf of the accounting officer of the EEAS, of the respective amounts of EUR 100 600, EUR 41 522 and EUR 52 600 (decisions communicated on 15 March 2017), EUR 58 924 (decision communicated on 7 April 2017) and EUR 41 422 (decision communicated on 19 April 2017) and, secondly, an injunction against EEAS adopting any further offsetting decision against the applicant pending delivery of a final judgment concerning the dispute related to the performance of the framework contract 2008/14/SEC/RELEX/K8, pending before the Court of First Instance of Brussels (Belgium).

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.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/36

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhía v Commission

(Case T-244/17 R)

((Interim measures - Fishing vessel - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - Admissibility - Application for interim measures - Lack of interest))

(2017/C 293/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: António Conde & Companhía, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures ordering the European Commission to abstain from exerting pressure on the Republic of Portugal to exclude the fishing vessel Calvão from the list of Portuguese-flagged vessels authorised to fish in the NAFO regulatory area.

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.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/36

---

Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission

(Case T-392/17)

(2017/C 293/45)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/37

---

Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission

(Case T-400/17)

(2017/C 293/46)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (‘the CLP Regulation’), in so far as it classifies and labels the substance anthraquinone, by inserting the following entry in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council: Index number 606-151-00-4; International Chemical Identification: anthraquinone; EC No: 201-549-0; CAS No: 84-65-1; Hazard Class and Category Code: Carc. IB; Hazard Statement Code: H350; Pictogram, Signal Word Code: GHS08 Dgr; Hazard Statement Code: H350; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (‘the CLP Regulation’), in so far as it classifies and labels the substance anthraquinone, by inserting the following entry in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council: Index number 606-151-00-4; International Chemical Identification: anthraquinone; EC No: 201-549-0; CAS No: 84-65-1; Hazard Class and Category Code: Carc. IB; Hazard Statement Code: H350; Pictogram, Signal Word Code: GHS08 Dgr; Hazard Statement Code: H350;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation






  — | That classification and labelling are not based on sufficient evidence obtained from reliable and acceptable studies demonstrating a causal relationship between the substance anthraquinone as such and an increased incidence of tumours in experimental animals within the meaning of points 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation

—

That classification and labelling are not based on sufficient evidence obtained from reliable and acceptable studies demonstrating a causal relationship between the substance anthraquinone as such and an increased incidence of tumours in experimental animals within the meaning of points 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and of principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union






  — | As a consequence of the unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation, there was a breach in particular of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and of principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

—

As a consequence of the unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation, there was a breach in particular of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principle of legal certainty.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/38

---

Action brought on 6 July 2017 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

(Case T-421/17)

(2017/C 293/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Parliament’s decision of 3 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to its decision of 8 July 2015 adopted in response to a confirmatory application made by a third party under Regulation 1049/2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Parliament’s decision of 3 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to its decision of 8 July 2015 adopted in response to a confirmatory application made by a third party under Regulation 1049/2001;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings, contained in Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.






  — | It is argued that the requested document is a final administrative document, not protected by confidentiality or any other non-disclosure exception. Furthermore, even if such an exception were to apply in the present case, it is argued that the defendant has manifestly misinterpreted or misapplied it by failing to show how the disclosure of the requested document would undermine the protection of court proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings, contained in Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.

—

It is argued that the requested document is a final administrative document, not protected by confidentiality or any other non-disclosure exception. Furthermore, even if such an exception were to apply in the present case, it is argued that the defendant has manifestly misinterpreted or misapplied it by failing to show how the disclosure of the requested document would undermine the protection of court proceedings.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, as a subsidiary ground, error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of the Transparency Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, as a subsidiary ground, error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of the Transparency Regulation.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/38

---

Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO

(Case T-422/17)

(2017/C 293/48)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2017 to eliminate the applicant from the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition EPSO/AD/335/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2017 to eliminate the applicant from the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition EPSO/AD/335/16;

| — | oblige the defendant to allow the applicant to correct a clear error, by altering the level of knowledge of the Polish language from B1 to C1; |
| --- | --- |

—

oblige the defendant to allow the applicant to correct a clear error, by altering the level of knowledge of the Polish language from B1 to C1;

| — | restore the applicant to the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

restore the applicant to the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The basis of the first plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s legitimate expectations and misled him when it confirmed that his application to participate in the competition met all the requirements.






  — | The applicant states that the defendant, having confirmed on 9 January 2017 that his application met all the requirements of the competition notice and having allowed him to participate in the computer-based tests, misled him and did not grant him the opportunity of correcting a clear clerical error relating to the level of knowledge of the Polish language and on account of which he was later eliminated from the competition. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The basis of the first plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s legitimate expectations and misled him when it confirmed that his application to participate in the competition met all the requirements.

—

The applicant states that the defendant, having confirmed on 9 January 2017 that his application met all the requirements of the competition notice and having allowed him to participate in the computer-based tests, misled him and did not grant him the opportunity of correcting a clear clerical error relating to the level of knowledge of the Polish language and on account of which he was later eliminated from the competition.

| 2. | The basis of the second plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s rights and legitimate expectations when it eliminated him from the competition for Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist posts.






  — | The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The basis of the second plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s rights and legitimate expectations when it eliminated him from the competition for Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist posts.

—

The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/39

---

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

(Case T-443/17)

(2017/C 293/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: António Conde & Companhia, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision refusal to forward promptly to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the names of the Portuguese-licensed vessels SANTA ISABEL and CALVÃO, thus preventing them from operating, as from 1 July 2017, in the fishing zones of the North-East Atlantic, in order to fish for redfish and shrimp, and thereby infringing Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision refusal to forward promptly to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the names of the Portuguese-licensed vessels SANTA ISABEL and CALVÃO, thus preventing them from operating, as from 1 July 2017, in the fishing zones of the North-East Atlantic, in order to fish for redfish and shrimp, and thereby infringing Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 (1);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant has acted in breach of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 by interfering in the process of drafting or communication of the list of vessels drawn up by Portugal for forwarding to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The defendant is not entitled to comment upon, amend, make recommendations regarding, assess, deny, draft or put pressure on the Member States in respect of such lists.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (OJ 2010 L 348, p. 17).

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/40

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

(Case T-86/15) (1)

(2017/C 293/50)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/40

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a radiator grille)

(Case T-88/15) (1)

(2017/C 293/51)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/40

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-38/17) (1)

(2017/C 293/52)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/41

---

Order of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — GY v Commission

(Case T-203/17) (1)

(2017/C 293/53)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

---