# Official Journal C 200/6 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 200 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 596 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 200

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 596 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 200/01 | 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

2016/C 200/01

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 |
| 2016/C 200/02 | Case C-142/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 263 TFEU — Criterion for direct concern — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 8 — Offer of a price undertaking by Chinese exporting producers — Acceptance by the Commission — Exemption of anti-dumping duties — Action against the acceptance decision — Inadmissibility) | 2 |
| 2016/C 200/03 | Case C-312/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate — Loss of interest in bringing proceedings) | 3 |
| 2016/C 200/04 | Case C-346/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community word marks BE HAPPY — Declaration of invalidity — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character) | 3 |
| 2016/C 200/05 | Case C-380/15: Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court hearing the case — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court) | 4 |
| 2016/C 200/06 | Case C-613/15: Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Term relating to default interest — Early repayment term — Power of the national court — Time limit) | 4 |
| 2016/C 200/07 | Case C-407/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională Loteria Română S.A. | 5 |
| 2016/C 200/08 | Case C-121/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio | 5 |
| 2016/C 200/09 | Case C-139/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A. | 6 |
| 2016/C 200/10 | Case C-140/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini | 7 |
| 2016/C 200/11 | Case C-143/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro | 7 |
| 2016/C 200/12 | Case C-145/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane | 8 |
| 2016/C 200/13 | Case C-150/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA | 8 |
| 2016/C 200/14 | Case C-155/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine | 9 |
| 2016/C 200/15 | Case C-162/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni | 10 |
| 2016/C 200/16 | Case C-167/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García | 11 |
| 2016/C 200/17 | Case C-171/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Trayan Beshkov | 11 |
| 2016/C 200/18 | Case C-177/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome | 12 |
| 2016/C 200/19 | Case C-192/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 April 2016 — Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs | 13 |
| 2016/C 200/20 | Case C-202/16: Action brought on 12 April 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 14 |
| 2016/C 200/21 | Case C-118/15: Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea | 15 |
| 2016/C 200/22 | Case C-302/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Tarragona — Spain) — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca | 15 |
| 2016/C 200/23 | Case C-540/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic | 16 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 200/24 | Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Existing or new aid — Article 1(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Misuse of powers — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Effect on trade between Member States — Distortion of competition) | 17 |
| 2016/C 200/25 | Case T-56/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Reasonable time) | 18 |
| 2016/C 200/26 | Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Selective nature of the measure — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection — Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons) | 18 |
| 2016/C 200/27 | Case T-44/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Social policy — Service of general economic interest — Article 352 TFEU — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons) | 19 |
| 2016/C 200/28 | Case T-77/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SkyTec — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 20 |
| 2016/C 200/29 | Case T-295/15: Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith — Earlier EU word mark SMITH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 21 |
| 2016/C 200/30 | Case T-320/15: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2016 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission (Public procurement — Withdrawal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate) | 21 |
| 2016/C 200/31 | Case T-475/15: Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the mark — No need to adjudicate) | 22 |
| 2016/C 200/32 | Case T-536/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate) | 22 |
| 2016/C 200/33 | Case T-550/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility) | 23 |
| 2016/C 200/34 | Case T-551/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2016/C 200/35 | Case T-556/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2016/C 200/36 | Case T-592/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — No need to adjudicate) | 25 |
| 2016/C 200/37 | Case T-140/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 26 |
| 2016/C 200/38 | Case T-119/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW) | 26 |
| 2016/C 200/39 | Case T-137/16: Action brought on 25 March 2016 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA | 27 |
| 2016/C 200/40 | Case T-153/16: Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council | 28 |
| 2016/C 200/41 | Case T-154/16: Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan) | 29 |
| 2016/C 200/42 | Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission | 29 |
| 2016/C 200/43 | Case T-163/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.) | 30 |
| 2016/C 200/44 | Case T-164/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES) | 31 |
| 2016/C 200/45 | Case T-166/16: Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament | 32 |
| 2016/C 200/46 | Case T-717/15: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Drugsrus v EMA | 32 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 200/02

Case C-142/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 263 TFEU — Criterion for direct concern — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 8 — Offer of a price undertaking by Chinese exporting producers — Acceptance by the Commission — Exemption of anti-dumping duties — Action against the acceptance decision — Inadmissibility)

2

2016/C 200/03

Case C-312/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate — Loss of interest in bringing proceedings)

3

2016/C 200/04

Case C-346/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community word marks BE HAPPY — Declaration of invalidity — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)

3

2016/C 200/05

Case C-380/15: Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court hearing the case — Failure to implement EU law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

4

2016/C 200/06

Case C-613/15: Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Term relating to default interest — Early repayment term — Power of the national court — Time limit)

4

2016/C 200/07

Case C-407/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională Loteria Română S.A.

5

2016/C 200/08

Case C-121/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

5

2016/C 200/09

Case C-139/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

6

2016/C 200/10

Case C-140/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini

7

2016/C 200/11

Case C-143/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

7

2016/C 200/12

Case C-145/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

8

2016/C 200/13

Case C-150/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

8

2016/C 200/14

Case C-155/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

9

2016/C 200/15

Case C-162/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni

10

2016/C 200/16

Case C-167/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

11

2016/C 200/17

Case C-171/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Trayan Beshkov

11

2016/C 200/18

Case C-177/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome

12

2016/C 200/19

Case C-192/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 April 2016 — Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

13

2016/C 200/20

Case C-202/16: Action brought on 12 April 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

14

2016/C 200/21

Case C-118/15: Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

15

2016/C 200/22

Case C-302/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Tarragona — Spain) — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

15

2016/C 200/23

Case C-540/15: Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

16

General Court

2016/C 200/24

Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Existing or new aid — Article 1(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Misuse of powers — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Effect on trade between Member States — Distortion of competition)

17

2016/C 200/25

Case T-56/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Reasonable time)

18

2016/C 200/26

Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Selective nature of the measure — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection — Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

18

2016/C 200/27

Case T-44/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Social policy — Service of general economic interest — Article 352 TFEU — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons)

19

2016/C 200/28

Case T-77/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SkyTec — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

20

2016/C 200/29

Case T-295/15: Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith — Earlier EU word mark SMITH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

21

2016/C 200/30

Case T-320/15: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2016 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission (Public procurement — Withdrawal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate)

21

2016/C 200/31

Case T-475/15: Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the mark — No need to adjudicate)

22

2016/C 200/32

Case T-536/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

22

2016/C 200/33

Case T-550/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

23

2016/C 200/34

Case T-551/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

24

2016/C 200/35

Case T-556/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

24

2016/C 200/36

Case T-592/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

25

2016/C 200/37

Case T-140/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

26

2016/C 200/38

Case T-119/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)

26

2016/C 200/39

Case T-137/16: Action brought on 25 March 2016 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA

27

2016/C 200/40

Case T-153/16: Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council

28

2016/C 200/41

Case T-154/16: Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)

29

2016/C 200/42

Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission

29

2016/C 200/43

Case T-163/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)

30

2016/C 200/44

Case T-164/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)

31

2016/C 200/45

Case T-166/16: Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament

32

2016/C 200/46

Case T-717/15: Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Drugsrus v EMA

32

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/1

---

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

(2016/C 200/01)

Last publication

OJ C 191, 30.5.2016

Past publications

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/2

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA, European Commission

(Case C-142/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 263 TFEU - Criterion for direct concern - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 8 - Offer of a price undertaking by Chinese exporting producers - Acceptance by the Commission - Exemption of anti-dumping duties - Action against the acceptance decision - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 200/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar SAU, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — SolarWorld AG v Solsonica SpA, European Commission

(Case C-312/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Loss of interest in bringing proceedings))

(2016/C 200/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Solsonica SpA, European Commission (represented by: J-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SolarWorld AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-346/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community word marks BE HAPPY - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character))

(2016/C 200/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Steinbeck GmbH (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is rejected.

| 2. | Steinbeck GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Steinbeck GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/4

---

Order of the Court of 23 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)) — Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL

(Case C-380/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court hearing the case - Failure to implement EU law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 200/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Francisca Garzón Ramos, José Javier Ramos Martín

Defendants: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SA, Intercotrans SL

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Audiencia Provincial de les Illes Balears (Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands, Spain) by decision of 1 July 2015.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/4

---

Order of the Court of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco SAU v José Cortés González

(Case C-613/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Term relating to default interest - Early repayment term - Power of the national court - Time limit))

(2016/C 200/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Alcobendas (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibercaja Banco SAU

Defendant: José Cortés González

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2003 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) thereof do not permit the law of a Member State to restrict the discretion of a national court in respect of a finding of unfair terms in a mortgage contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) thereof do not permit the law of a Member State to restrict the discretion of a national court in respect of a finding of unfair terms in a mortgage contract concluded between a consumer and a professional, and

| — | Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof require that national law may not prevent that court from setting aside such a term if it were found to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof require that national law may not prevent that court from setting aside such a term if it were found to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.

(Case C-407/15)

(2016/C 200/07)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău (România)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ovidiu Rîpanu

Defendant: Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.

By order of 18 February 2016, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to reply to the question submitted.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Salumificio Murru SpA v Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

(Case C-121/16)

(2016/C 200/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salumificio Murru SpA

Defendant: Autotrasporti di Marongiu Remigio

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 101 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that provided for in Article 83bis(10) of Legislative Decree 112/2008, in so far as the price of road haulage services on behalf of third parties may not be lower than minimum operating costs determined by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and is not left to be freely determined by the contracting parties?

| 2. | In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport’s status of public authority, may the competition rules in the internal market be restricted by the national legislation in order to pursue the aim of maintaining road safety?

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

(Case C-139/16)

(2016/C 200/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Juan Moreno Marín, Maria Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente

Other party: Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | May the prohibitions in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 (1) include the use of a sign referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the prohibitions in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 (1) include the use of a sign referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality?

| 2. | May a sign with these characteristics be regarded as a sign of geographical origin in so far as the product or service will always be concentrated in a specific physical area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a sign with these characteristics be regarded as a sign of geographical origin in so far as the product or service will always be concentrated in a specific physical area?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl v Comune di Maiolati Spontini

(Case C-140/16)

(2016/C 200/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Edra Costruzioni Soc. coop., Edilfac Srl

Defendant: Comune di Maiolati Spontini

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

(Case C-143/16)

(2016/C 200/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Respondent and cross-appellant: Antonino Bordonaro

Question referred

Is the rule of national law set out in Article 34 of Legislative Decree No 276 of 2003, according to which an on-call employment contract may, in any event, be concluded in respect of services provided by persons under 25 years of age, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age referred to in Directive 2000/78 (1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

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

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-145/16)

(2016/C 200/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 of 2 April 2012 (1) concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 99, p. 19.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

(Case C-150/16)

(2016/C 200/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendant at first instance and respondent: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the decision of the general shareholders’ meeting of COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA — adopted with the vote of the Romanian state, represented by the Ministerul Economiei — Departamentul pentru energie, which, as a shareholder, owns 77,17 % of that company’s share capital — by which it was agreed to extinguish SC ELECTROCENTRALE GRUP SA’s debt, totalling RON 28 709 475,13, to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, by way of transfer of an asset in lieu of payment, consisting of property registered under No 70301 in the land register for the municipality of Chișcani, Brăila district, and by which it was agreed at the same that ELECTROCENTRALE SC GRUP SA would be paid the difference between the market value of the asset and the sum owed to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is to say: (i) does it constitute a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) may it affect trade between the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the decision of the general shareholders’ meeting of COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA — adopted with the vote of the Romanian state, represented by the Ministerul Economiei — Departamentul pentru energie, which, as a shareholder, owns 77,17 % of that company’s share capital — by which it was agreed to extinguish SC ELECTROCENTRALE GRUP SA’s debt, totalling RON 28 709 475,13, to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, by way of transfer of an asset in lieu of payment, consisting of property registered under No 70301 in the land register for the municipality of Chișcani, Brăila district, and by which it was agreed at the same that ELECTROCENTRALE SC GRUP SA would be paid the difference between the market value of the asset and the sum owed to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is to say: (i) does it constitute a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) may it affect trade between the Member States?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 March 2016 — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

(Case C-155/16)

(2016/C 200/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt

Respondents: Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France SAS, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that associations governed by private law, established by the relevant professional organisations in order to conclude contracts for the provision of rendering services that are funded by the members of those organisations, who pay contributions for that purpose, are to be regarded as bodies governed by public law, in light of the criterion that such bodies must have been established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest not having an industrial or commercial character? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that associations governed by private law, established by the relevant professional organisations in order to conclude contracts for the provision of rendering services that are funded by the members of those organisations, who pay contributions for that purpose, are to be regarded as bodies governed by public law, in light of the criterion that such bodies must have been established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest not having an industrial or commercial character?

| 2. | Is Article 1 of Directive 2004/18 is to be interpreted as meaning that associations of that description, and in particular those which receive compulsory contributions, satisfy the criterion for classification as a body governed by public law relating to the exercise by the public authorities of management supervision when that economic and financial supervision of the State is external supervision of the economic activity and financial management of the undertakings and bodies that are subject to it and its purpose is to analyse the risks and assess the performance of those undertakings and bodies while protecting the financial interests of the State and when, in order to carry out his duties, the agent entrusted with the task of supervision enjoys full powers of documentary and on-site investigation, the undertaking or body under supervision is required to communicate to that agent all the information he may require in order to fulfil his duties, including information concerning subsidiaries within its scope of consolidation, the agent may, where appropriate, request any additional information, may attend, in an advisory capacity, meetings of the board of directors or supervisory board or other equivalent decision-making body and of any committees and commissions created by them, may attend meetings of the committees, commissions and all consultative bodies within the undertaking or body as well as annual general meetings and must receive, in the same manner as the members thereof, invitations to such meetings, agendas and all other documents that are to be sent out before each meeting? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 1 of Directive 2004/18 is to be interpreted as meaning that associations of that description, and in particular those which receive compulsory contributions, satisfy the criterion for classification as a body governed by public law relating to the exercise by the public authorities of management supervision when that economic and financial supervision of the State is external supervision of the economic activity and financial management of the undertakings and bodies that are subject to it and its purpose is to analyse the risks and assess the performance of those undertakings and bodies while protecting the financial interests of the State and when, in order to carry out his duties, the agent entrusted with the task of supervision enjoys full powers of documentary and on-site investigation, the undertaking or body under supervision is required to communicate to that agent all the information he may require in order to fulfil his duties, including information concerning subsidiaries within its scope of consolidation, the agent may, where appropriate, request any additional information, may attend, in an advisory capacity, meetings of the board of directors or supervisory board or other equivalent decision-making body and of any committees and commissions created by them, may attend meetings of the committees, commissions and all consultative bodies within the undertaking or body as well as annual general meetings and must receive, in the same manner as the members thereof, invitations to such meetings, agendas and all other documents that are to be sent out before each meeting?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni

(Case C-162/16)

(2016/C 200/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl

Defendant: Comune di Monteroduni

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

(Case C-167/16)

(2016/C 200/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Defendants: Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts compatible with the fact that a finding that an accelerated repayment clause, which is the grounds for enforcement proceedings, is unfair does not give rise to any consequences in the legal proceedings in which that finding is made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts compatible with the fact that a finding that an accelerated repayment clause, which is the grounds for enforcement proceedings, is unfair does not give rise to any consequences in the legal proceedings in which that finding is made?

| 2. | Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 compatible with an interpretation whereby the consequences of a finding that an accelerated repayment clause is unfair are made conditional upon the specific characteristics of the proceedings for which the seller or supplier may opt? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 compatible with an interpretation whereby the consequences of a finding that an accelerated repayment clause is unfair are made conditional upon the specific characteristics of the proceedings for which the seller or supplier may opt?

| 3. | Is an interpretation to the effect that, although a pre-formulated clause allows accelerated maturity in a long-term contract for breach that is not serious, leaving the consumer in worse circumstances than those resulting from the supplemental national provision, the clause would not be void solely because a corrective rule exists in the national procedural provision that is applicable only in the specific procedure chosen by the seller or supplier and only if certain conditions are fulfilled, compatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is an interpretation to the effect that, although a pre-formulated clause allows accelerated maturity in a long-term contract for breach that is not serious, leaving the consumer in worse circumstances than those resulting from the supplemental national provision, the clause would not be void solely because a corrective rule exists in the national procedural provision that is applicable only in the specific procedure chosen by the seller or supplier and only if certain conditions are fulfilled, compatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13?

| 4. | Is Article 693.3 [of the] Code of Civil Procedure (2) an appropriate and effective remedy that enables the consumer to remedy the effects of an unfair accelerated repayment clause, account being taken of the fact that he must pay the interest and costs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 693.3 [of the] Code of Civil Procedure (2) an appropriate and effective remedy that enables the consumer to remedy the effects of an unfair accelerated repayment clause, account being taken of the fact that he must pay the interest and costs?

| 5. | Is a national procedural law which grants rights to a consumer that he can rely upon in specially expedited enforcement proceedings which the seller or supplier may choose from among other options, in which such rights are unknown, consistent with the principle of effectiveness of Directive 93/13 and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (3) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is a national procedural law which grants rights to a consumer that he can rely upon in specially expedited enforcement proceedings which the seller or supplier may choose from among other options, in which such rights are unknown, consistent with the principle of effectiveness of Directive 93/13 and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (3)

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC).

(3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Trayan Beshkov

(Case C-171/16)

(2016/C 200/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen Sad

Party to the main proceedings

Trayan Beshkov

Questions referred

| 1. | How must the expression ‘new criminal proceedings’ used in Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted, and must that expression necessarily be connected with a finding of guilt in respect of an offence committed or can it also relate to proceedings in which, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed in an earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How must the expression ‘new criminal proceedings’ used in Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted, and must that expression necessarily be connected with a finding of guilt in respect of an offence committed or can it also relate to proceedings in which, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed in an earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately?

| 2. | Must Article 3(1), read in conjunction with recital 13, of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as permitting national rules which provide that proceedings in which an earlier judgment delivered in another Member State must be taken into account may not be initiated by the sentenced person but only by the Member State in which the earlier judgment was delivered or by the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 3(1), read in conjunction with recital 13, of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as permitting national rules which provide that proceedings in which an earlier judgment delivered in another Member State must be taken into account may not be initiated by the sentenced person but only by the Member State in which the earlier judgment was delivered or by the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place?

| 3. | Must Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place may not change the manner of execution of the penalty imposed by the Member State which issued the earlier sentence, including in the event that, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed by the earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place may not change the manner of execution of the penalty imposed by the Member State which issued the earlier sentence, including in the event that, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed by the earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately?

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’ v Konkurences padome

(Case C-177/16)

(2016/C 200/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’

Defendant at first instance: Konkurences padome

Questions referred

| 1. | Is subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question?

| 2. | For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets?

| 3. | For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the purchasing power parity index based on gross domestic product? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the purchasing power parity index based on gross domestic product?

| 4. | Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates?

| 5. | When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair? |
| --- | --- |

5.

When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair?

| 6. | What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation?

| 7. | In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator? |
| --- | --- |

7.

In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator?

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 April 2016 — Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-192/16)

(2016/C 200/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher

Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Interested party: Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and in the light of the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom:






  1.1. | Are Gibraltar and the UK to be treated as if they were part of a single Member State (a) for the purposes of EU law and if so, does that have the consequence that Article 49 TFEU has no application as between the UK and Gibraltar save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure, or alternatively (b) for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU taken individually, so that that article does not apply save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure? Alternatively, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and in the light of the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom:

1.1.

Are Gibraltar and the UK to be treated as if they were part of a single Member State (a) for the purposes of EU law and if so, does that have the consequence that Article 49 TFEU has no application as between the UK and Gibraltar save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure, or alternatively (b) for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU taken individually, so that that article does not apply save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure? Alternatively,

| 1.2. | Having regard to Article 355(3) TFEU, does Gibraltar have the constitutional status of a separate territory to the UK within the EU such that either (a) the exercise of the right of establishment as between Gibraltar and the UK is to be treated as intra-EU trade for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU, or (b) Article 49 TFEU applies to prohibit restrictions on the exercise of the right of establishment by nationals in the UK in Gibraltar (as a separate entity)? Alternatively, |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Having regard to Article 355(3) TFEU, does Gibraltar have the constitutional status of a separate territory to the UK within the EU such that either (a) the exercise of the right of establishment as between Gibraltar and the UK is to be treated as intra-EU trade for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU, or (b) Article 49 TFEU applies to prohibit restrictions on the exercise of the right of establishment by nationals in the UK in Gibraltar (as a separate entity)? Alternatively,

| 1.3. | Is Gibraltar to be treated as a third country or territory with the effect that EU law is only engaged in respect of transactions between the two in circumstances where EU law has effect between a Member State and a non- Member State? Alternatively, |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

Is Gibraltar to be treated as a third country or territory with the effect that EU law is only engaged in respect of transactions between the two in circumstances where EU law has effect between a Member State and a non- Member State? Alternatively,

| 1.4. | Is the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the UK to be treated in some other way for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

Is the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the UK to be treated in some other way for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU?

| 2. | How, if at all, does the answer to the above questions differ when considered in the context of Article 63 TFEU (and consequently as regards the freedom of movement of capital) rather than Article 49 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How, if at all, does the answer to the above questions differ when considered in the context of Article 63 TFEU (and consequently as regards the freedom of movement of capital) rather than Article 49 TFEU?

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/14

---

Action brought on 12 April 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-202/16)

(2016/C 200/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by permitting the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni, which does not meet the conditions and requirements of European Union environmental legislation under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/ΕC (1) on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Articles 8(a) and 11(1) of and Annex Ι to Directive 99/31/ΕC (2) on the landfill of waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by permitting the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni, which does not meet the conditions and requirements of European Union environmental legislation under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/ΕC (1) on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Articles 8(a) and 11(1) of and Annex Ι to Directive 99/31/ΕC (2) on the landfill of waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | This case concerns the failure of the Hellenic Republic to comply with the obligations stemming from Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives, Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC on the sanitary landfill of waste. The infringement of those provisions relates to the operation of the sanitary landfill at Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC at Temploni in Corfu. |
| --- | --- |

1.

This case concerns the failure of the Hellenic Republic to comply with the obligations stemming from Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives, Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC on the sanitary landfill of waste. The infringement of those provisions relates to the operation of the sanitary landfill at Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC at Temploni in Corfu.

| 2. | The subject matter of this action is the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni and the harmful effects on the environment, in connection with the failure of the Greek authorities to adopt the measures required and laid down by the EU legislation, with a view to the operation of the landfill site being fully compliant with the conditions and requirements of EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The subject matter of this action is the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni and the harmful effects on the environment, in connection with the failure of the Greek authorities to adopt the measures required and laid down by the EU legislation, with a view to the operation of the landfill site being fully compliant with the conditions and requirements of EU legislation.

| 3. | The Commission, in the course of the infringement procedure, had identified various problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, which were confirmed by various inspections carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the competent Greek authorities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission, in the course of the infringement procedure, had identified various problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, which were confirmed by various inspections carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the competent Greek authorities.

| 4. | In their last response of 23 March 2015 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that:






  — | a new dossier of amendments to the Decision defining the environmental terms of the landfill site with a view to the specification of various works which must be carried out in order that the landfill site should operate correctly has been adopted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In their last response of 23 March 2015 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that:

—

a new dossier of amendments to the Decision defining the environmental terms of the landfill site with a view to the specification of various works which must be carried out in order that the landfill site should operate correctly has been adopted;

| — | further to the inspection of 8 August 2014 (and the confirmation of new infringements) the procedure for the imposition of administrative penalties, on the operator, has been again initiated by the local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

further to the inspection of 8 August 2014 (and the confirmation of new infringements) the procedure for the imposition of administrative penalties, on the operator, has been again initiated by the local authorities;

| — | various essential works remain underway, such as for example the works relating to the processing of biogas (the Commission observes that the Greek authorities report now and for the first time that the amendment of the environmental terms of the landfill site is a wholly necessary precondition for the completion of those works); |
| --- | --- |

—

various essential works remain underway, such as for example the works relating to the processing of biogas (the Commission observes that the Greek authorities report now and for the first time that the amendment of the environmental terms of the landfill site is a wholly necessary precondition for the completion of those works);

| — | the procedure for finding a site for the new landfill site which has to be installed on the island has still not been completed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the procedure for finding a site for the new landfill site which has to be installed on the island has still not been completed.

| 5. | The Commission considers that it is clear that the landfill site established at Temploni continues to operate incorrectly and while some defects come to an end, others come to light in the passage of time, with the result that it is impossible to list them exhaustively, since there are ongoing changes. In any event, whatever the exact number of infringements, the Commission considers that it is manifest (and it is not disputed by the Greek authorities) that the operation of the landfill site fails to comply with the requirements of the two abovementioned directives. Notwithstanding the inspections which revealed repeated significant problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, the Greek authorities continue to permit it to operate. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission considers that it is clear that the landfill site established at Temploni continues to operate incorrectly and while some defects come to an end, others come to light in the passage of time, with the result that it is impossible to list them exhaustively, since there are ongoing changes. In any event, whatever the exact number of infringements, the Commission considers that it is manifest (and it is not disputed by the Greek authorities) that the operation of the landfill site fails to comply with the requirements of the two abovementioned directives. Notwithstanding the inspections which revealed repeated significant problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, the Greek authorities continue to permit it to operate.

---

(1)  OJ L 312 of 22.11.2008, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

(Case C-118/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Tarragona — Spain) — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

(Case C-302/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-540/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/23)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

---

General Court

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Existing or new aid - Article 1(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Effect on trade between Member States - Distortion of competition))

(2016/C 200/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. McPhillips, acting as Agents, and P. McGarry, Senior Counsel); Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by: C. Waterson, C. Little and J. Handoll, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), to the extent that that decision concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region (Ireland).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-50/06, T-50/06 RENV I and T-50/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-50/06, T-50/06 RENV I and T-50/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

| 3. | Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases 0T-69/06, T-69/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV II, three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P and all the costs in Case T-69/06 R; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases 0T-69/06, T-69/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV II, three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P and all the costs in Case T-69/06 R;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Joined Cases T-50/06 and T-69/06, Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV I and Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Joined Cases T-50/06 and T-69/06, Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV I and Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission

(Case T-56/06 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Reasonable time))

(2016/C 200/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Article 5 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), in so far as it obliges the French Republic to recover the State aid incompatible with the common market it granted, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region (France).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Italy and Eurallumina v Commission

(Joined Cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II) (1)

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Selective nature of the measure - Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection - Guidelines on national regional aid 1998 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Principles of presumption of legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 200/26)

Languages of the case: Italian and English

Parties

Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), and Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, A. Stratakis and L. Philippou, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), to the extent that it concerns the existence of State aid granted by the Italian Republic, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Sardinia (Italy) and that it orders the Italian Republic to recover that aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Cases T-60/06, T-60/06 RENV I and T-60/06 RENV II and to bear its own costs and pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs in Cases T-60/06, T-60/06 RENV I and T-60/06 RENV II and to bear its own costs and pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

| 3. | Orders Eurallumina SpA to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eurallumina SpA to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-62/06, T-62/06 RENV I and T-62/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission

(Case T-44/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Social policy - Service of general economic interest - Article 352 TFEU - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 200/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Gałązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens’ Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers, and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7612 final of 5 November 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bruno Costantini and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bruno Costantini and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Tronios Group International v EUIPO — Sky (SkyTec)

(Case T-77/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SkyTec - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 200/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tronios Group International BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van Leeuwen and H. Klingenberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Crabbe and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented initially by J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Schut and A. Meijboom, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2014 (Case R 1681/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Tronios Group International BV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tronios Group International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tronios Group International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Sky plc to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sky plc to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/21

---

Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)

(Case T-295/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith - Earlier EU word mark SMITH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 200/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Yongyu Zhang (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Steinert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2015 (Case R 1559/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG et M. Yongyu Zhang.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Yongyu Zhang to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Yongyu Zhang to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/21

---

Order of the General Court of 15 April 2016 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission

(Case T-320/15) (1)

((Public procurement - Withdrawal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 200/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and C. Toniolo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 7 April 2015 of the Director General of the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC.B6/RL/Ares(2015)) excluding the applicant from participation in all procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years and 10 months.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/22

---

Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)

(Case T-475/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the mark - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 200/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1143/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH and L’Oréal SA.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/22

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-536/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 200/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 (Case R 2472/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between ÏD Group and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/23

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-550/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 200/33)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 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 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/24

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-551/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 200/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 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 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/24

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-556/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 200/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 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 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/25

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Novartis v OHIM — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)

(Case T-592/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 200/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2342/2014-5), concerning cancellation proceedings between SK Chemicals GmbH and Novartis AG.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Novartis AG and SK Chemicals GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Novartis AG and SK Chemicals GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-140/16 R)

((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2016/C 200/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of 320 026,23 euros, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

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.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/26

---

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)

(Case T-119/16)

(2016/C 200/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Topera, Inc. (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: H. Sheraton, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU mark ‘RHYTHMVIEW’ — Application for registration No 13 374 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 1368/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/27

---

Action brought on 25 March 2016 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA

(Case T-137/16)

(2016/C 200/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: W. Dubis, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to terminate Grant Agreement No 252908 for the COSSAR (Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Algorithms for Cognitive Radio Networks) Project (PIEF-GA-2009-252908), which was concluded on 26 July 2010 under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union — European Support for Training and Career Development of Researchers (Marie Curie) and to require the applicant to repay a portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, to repay the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and to pay a contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) to terminate Grant Agreement No 252908 for the COSSAR (Cooperative Spectrum Sensing Algorithms for Cognitive Radio Networks) Project (PIEF-GA-2009-252908), which was concluded on 26 July 2010 under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union — European Support for Training and Career Development of Researchers (Marie Curie) and to require the applicant to repay a portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, to repay the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and to pay a contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14;

| — | require the REA to reimburse to the applicant the portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and the contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14, increased by interest from the date of payment up to the date of reimbursement; |
| --- | --- |

—

require the REA to reimburse to the applicant the portion of the financial assistance in the amounts of EUR 36 508,37 and EUR 58 031,38, the security for the guarantee fund in the amount of 6 286,68 and the contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 5 803,14, increased by interest from the date of payment up to the date of reimbursement;

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

—

order the REA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward one plea in law concerning the REA’s interpretation of [Section III.3.1(j)] of Annex III to the Grant Agreement.

| — | The applicant submits that, while the Grant Agreement does not contain any legal definition of the wording contained in the agreement in question, the normal understanding of that wording is at variance with that put forward by the REA. It invokes the rules on literal, functional and teleological interpretation under Belgian law, which, according to the terms of the Grant Agreement, are applicable in full to the latter. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant submits that, while the Grant Agreement does not contain any legal definition of the wording contained in the agreement in question, the normal understanding of that wording is at variance with that put forward by the REA. It invokes the rules on literal, functional and teleological interpretation under Belgian law, which, according to the terms of the Grant Agreement, are applicable in full to the latter.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/28

---

Action brought on 8 April 2016 — Acerga v Council

(Case T-153/16)

(2016/C 200/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de armadores de cerco de Galicia (Acerga) (Sada, Spain) (represented by: B. Huarte Melgar, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/458 of 30 March 2016 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72 as regards certain fishing opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/458 of 30 March 2016 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/72 as regards certain fishing opportunities;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability.
  In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of relative stability.

In that regard, it is submitted that, since the same percentages for the allocation of fishing opportunities apply, account is not being taken of those regions of the Member States which joined the EEC after 1981, where local populations are (and were at that time) highly dependent on fisheries. As a consequence, the objective of relative stability itself is not being achieved. Furthermore, even assuming that that allocation key is fixed, it is submitted that those percentages have changed over the years, and as such the relative stability criterion has not been satisfied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, based on the failure to have regard to the objective of generating economic and social benefits and creating jobs, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the CFP 2013, in that Spanish regions where local populations are highly dependent on fisheries were not taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, based on the failure to have regard to the objective of generating economic and social benefits and creating jobs, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the CFP 2013, in that Spanish regions where local populations are highly dependent on fisheries were not taken into consideration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested provision applies relative stability differently to comparable situations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested provision applies relative stability differently to comparable situations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of solidarity, laid down in Article 3 TFEU.
  In that regard, it is submitted that both the allocation of national fishing quotas (based on relative stability), under Regulation (EU) 2016/72, and the instrumental measures for controlling fishing effort are not applied to the same extent in all Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of solidarity, laid down in Article 3 TFEU.

In that regard, it is submitted that both the allocation of national fishing quotas (based on relative stability), under Regulation (EU) 2016/72, and the instrumental measures for controlling fishing effort are not applied to the same extent in all Member States.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of an open market economy with free competition and the fundamental freedom of the European Union of movement of capital.
  In that regard, it is submitted that there is no mention in Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of the possibility of exchanging fishing quotas through tradable fishing rights between undertakings or producer organisations in the Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, based on the infringement of the principle of an open market economy with free competition and the fundamental freedom of the European Union of movement of capital.

In that regard, it is submitted that there is no mention in Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of the possibility of exchanging fishing quotas through tradable fishing rights between undertakings or producer organisations in the Member States of the EU.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/29

---

Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)

(Case T-154/16)

(2016/C 200/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRID applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APlan’ — Application No 13 374 079

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1819/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/29

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission

(Case T-160/16)

(2016/C 200/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Groningen Seaports NV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Amsterdam NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Havenschap Moerdijk (Moerdijk, Netherlands), NV Port of Den Helder (Den Helder, Netherlands), Zeeland Seaports NV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and I. Kieft, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission Decision of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings.

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

Single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the objectives of the State-aid rules, infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of equality, the requirement that decisions should be prepared with due care and the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, and breach of the obligation to state reasons.

| — | The public seaports in the Netherlands compete, not with Dutch private undertakings, but with French, Belgian and German seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range. |
| --- | --- |

—

The public seaports in the Netherlands compete, not with Dutch private undertakings, but with French, Belgian and German seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range.

| — | Those European competitors receive, to the detriment of the Dutch public seaports, a variety of forms of State aid. The Commission was aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. In the same way as the Dutch public seaports, all competing seaports within the Hamburg-Le Havre range enjoy an exemption from corporate tax. In addition, the German seaports receive very substantial operating aid in the form of loss compensation. The Commission was also aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Those European competitors receive, to the detriment of the Dutch public seaports, a variety of forms of State aid. The Commission was aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. In the same way as the Dutch public seaports, all competing seaports within the Hamburg-Le Havre range enjoy an exemption from corporate tax. In addition, the German seaports receive very substantial operating aid in the form of loss compensation. The Commission was also aware of this when it adopted the contested decision.

| — | The contested decision unilaterally abolishes the tax exemption in force for the Dutch public seaports, whereas the corresponding exemptions for the Belgian and French seaports are being maintained for the time being and there has as yet not even been a first formal procedural step taken towards abolishing aid to the German seaports. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision unilaterally abolishes the tax exemption in force for the Dutch public seaports, whereas the corresponding exemptions for the Belgian and French seaports are being maintained for the time being and there has as yet not even been a first formal procedural step taken towards abolishing aid to the German seaports.

| — | Since the Commission, by means of the contested decision, addresses only the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports, the already uneven playing field for the European port sector is worsened significantly and the Commission places the Dutch public seaports in a markedly worse position vis-à-vis their direct competitors, which are also exempt from corporate tax and, in addition, also receive other forms of State aid. The Commission fails to provide reasons why it is intervening only with regard to the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports. |
| --- | --- |

—

Since the Commission, by means of the contested decision, addresses only the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports, the already uneven playing field for the European port sector is worsened significantly and the Commission places the Dutch public seaports in a markedly worse position vis-à-vis their direct competitors, which are also exempt from corporate tax and, in addition, also receive other forms of State aid. The Commission fails to provide reasons why it is intervening only with regard to the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports.

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/30

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)

(Case T-163/16)

(2016/C 200/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘secret. service.’ — Application No 14 108 757

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 1820/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/31

---

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)

(Case T-164/16)

(2016/C 200/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Piper Verlag GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Oster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ — Application No 13 687 371

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1099/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in such a way that registration of the word/figurative mark ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ as an EU trade mark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office is ordered. |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in such a way that registration of the word/figurative mark ‘THE TRAVEL EPISODES’ as an EU trade mark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office is ordered.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/32

---

Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament

(Case T-166/16)

(2016/C 200/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful;

| — | consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Memorandum No D 302 681 of 11 February 2016 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, which contains the statement of reasons for Debit Note No 2016-207 of the same date appended thereto and concerning the recovery of sums alleged to have been unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance allowances.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-677/15, Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (OJ 2016 C 27, p. 74).

---

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/32

---

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — Drugsrus v EMA

(Case T-717/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/46)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---