# Official Journal C 72/26 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 72 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6126 February 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 72

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6126 February 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 72/01 | 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

2018/C 72/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2018/C 72/02 | Case C-434/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 58(1) TFEU — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 2000/31/EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Requirement for authorisation) | 2 |
| 2018/C 72/03 | Case C-521/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 — Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area — Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned — Jurisdiction — Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 — Article 8(1) and (3) — Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU — Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) — Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 — Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a — Rights of defence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41(1) — Right to good administration — Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU — Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure — Existence of an infringement — Misrepresentations — Determination of the fine — Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect) | 3 |
| 2018/C 72/04 | Case C-664/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) — Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Project that is likely to have an impact on water status — Administrative procedure for a permit — Environmental organisation — Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure — Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC — Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure) | 4 |
| 2018/C 72/05 | Case C-677/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA (Appeal — Public services contracts — Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Cascade procedure — Weighting of sub-criteria within the award criteria — Principles of equal opportunity and transparency — Manifest errors of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Loss of opportunity — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for damages) | 5 |
| 2018/C 72/06 | Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States) | 6 |
| 2018/C 72/07 | Case C-70/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States) | 6 |
| 2018/C 72/08 | Case C-81/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States) | 7 |
| 2018/C 72/09 | Case C-102/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Driver’s rest periods — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 8(6) and (8) — Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle — Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods) | 8 |
| 2018/C 72/10 | Case C-158/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of employment conditions — Placement on the administrative status for special service leave — National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants) | 8 |
| 2018/C 72/11 | Case C-178/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) and (3) — Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement — Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company — Criminal conduct of a former director — Criminal conviction — Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director — Evidence — Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation) | 9 |
| 2018/C 72/12 | Case C-226/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Gas industry — Security of gas supply — Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 — Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers — Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 — Definition of protected customers — Article 8(2) — Additional obligation — Article 8(5) — Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level — National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 — Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned) | 10 |
| 2018/C 72/13 | Case C-255/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S (References for a preliminary ruling — Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations — National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting) | 11 |
| 2018/C 72/14 | Case C-268/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Notion of personal benefit) | 11 |
| 2018/C 72/15 | Case C-276/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of protection of the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 244 — Recovery of a customs debt — Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment — Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment — Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings — Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code) | 12 |
| 2018/C 72/16 | Case C-277/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 8 and 16 — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 8 and 13 — Operator designated as having significant market power — Price control — Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities — Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices — Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality) | 13 |
| 2018/C 72/17 | Case C-291/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 7(1) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel trade marks — Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) — Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment — Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations) | 14 |
| 2018/C 72/18 | Case C-322/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and freedom to conduct a business — Restrictions — Award of new licences for the online operation of gaming — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Judgment of the Constitutional Court — Whether or not the national court is obliged to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling) | 15 |
| 2018/C 72/19 | Case C-334/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Concept of use of vehicles — National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not suitable for use by motor vehicles, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ordinarily so used) | 15 |
| 2018/C 72/20 | Case C-364/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed — Action for annulment and for damages) | 16 |
| 2018/C 72/21 | Case C-372/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country — Scope of that regulation) | 16 |
| 2018/C 72/22 | Case C-393/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Scope — Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO — Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO — False or misleading indication — PDO Champagne used in the name of a foodstuff — The name Champagner Sorbet — Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient — Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic) | 17 |
| 2018/C 72/23 | Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Article 110(1) — No protection — Repair clause — Concept of component part of a complex product — Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance — Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the repair clause — Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design) | 18 |
| 2018/C 72/24 | Case C-419/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Sabine Simma Federspiel v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement for workers — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine — Directives 75/363/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Remuneration of trainee specialist doctors) | 19 |
| 2018/C 72/25 | Case C-434/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of personal data — Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination — Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers — Article 12(a) and (b) — Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification) | 20 |
| 2018/C 72/26 | Case C-442/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity — Retention of the status of self-employed person — Right of residence — Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State) | 20 |
| 2018/C 72/27 | Case C-462/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds) | 21 |
| 2018/C 72/28 | Case C-467/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Lis pendens — Concept of court — Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings) | 22 |
| 2018/C 72/29 | Case C-492/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Patents — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 18 — Plant-protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Article 17(2) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Fixing the date of expiry — Consequences of a judgment of the Court — Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry) | 22 |
| 2018/C 72/30 | Case C-500/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TUE — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty) | 23 |
| 2018/C 72/31 | Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5 — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse — Presumption) | 24 |
| 2018/C 72/32 | Case C-516/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) — Austria) — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen v Agrarmarkt Austria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 — Articles 103b, 103d and 103 g — EU financial aid — Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX — Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations — Concept — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty) | 24 |
| 2018/C 72/33 | Case C-529/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Customs Code — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Cross-border transactions between related companies — Advance transfer pricing arrangement — Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period) | 25 |
| 2018/C 72/34 | Case C-649/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Scope — Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings) | 26 |
| 2018/C 72/35 | Case C-571/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence — Trial resulting in the decision — Scope — Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence — Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions — Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions — Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned) | 27 |
| 2018/C 72/36 | Case C-648/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE | 27 |
| 2018/C 72/37 | Case C-696/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2017 by Alex SCI against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-841/16, Alex v Commission | 28 |
| 2018/C 72/38 | Case C-14/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission | 29 |
| | General Court |
| 2018/C 72/39 | Case T-76/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT (Technological research and development — EIT — Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation — Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community — Rejection of the applicant’s proposal — Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Unlawful delegation of powers) | 31 |
| 2018/C 72/40 | Case T-747/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF — Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Force of res judicata — Private investor test) | 32 |
| 2018/C 72/41 | Case T-68/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe — Position mark — Genuine use of the mark — Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 32 |
| 2018/C 72/42 | Case T-204/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METABOX — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion) | 33 |
| 2018/C 72/43 | Case T-273/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METAPORN — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the services — Meaning of complementary services — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion) | 34 |
| 2018/C 72/44 | Case T-398/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS — Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) | 34 |
| 2018/C 72/45 | Case T-630/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Notion of linked undertaking — Submission of a Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size — 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge — Authority of the ECHA — Cessation of production of the substance) | 35 |
| 2018/C 72/46 | Case T-804/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Dual Edge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001)) | 36 |
| 2018/C 72/47 | Case T-231/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of dependent child — Concept of child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States legislation on the protection of minors’ — Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official) | 36 |
| 2018/C 72/48 | Case T-809/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT | 37 |
| 2018/C 72/49 | Case T-816/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission | 38 |
| 2018/C 72/50 | Case T-819/17: Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO | 39 |
| 2018/C 72/51 | Case T-823/17: Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik) | 40 |
| 2018/C 72/52 | Case T-834/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission | 41 |
| 2018/C 72/53 | Case T-835/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission | 42 |
| 2018/C 72/54 | Case T-837/17: Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate) | 43 |
| 2018/C 72/55 | Case T-3/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR) | 43 |
| 2018/C 72/56 | Case T-4/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR) | 44 |
| 2018/C 72/57 | Case T-5/18: Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY) | 45 |
| 2018/C 72/58 | Case T-6/18: Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company) | 46 |
| 2018/C 72/59 | Case T-7/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one) | 46 |
| 2018/C 72/60 | Case T-9/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING) | 47 |
| 2018/C 72/61 | Case T-12/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph) | 47 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2018/C 72/02

Case C-434/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 58(1) TFEU — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 2000/31/EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Requirement for authorisation)

2

2018/C 72/03

Case C-521/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 — Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area — Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned — Jurisdiction — Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 — Article 8(1) and (3) — Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU — Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) — Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 — Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a — Rights of defence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41(1) — Right to good administration — Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU — Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure — Existence of an infringement — Misrepresentations — Determination of the fine — Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect)

3

2018/C 72/04

Case C-664/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) — Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Project that is likely to have an impact on water status — Administrative procedure for a permit — Environmental organisation — Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure — Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC — Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure)

4

2018/C 72/05

Case C-677/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA (Appeal — Public services contracts — Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Cascade procedure — Weighting of sub-criteria within the award criteria — Principles of equal opportunity and transparency — Manifest errors of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Loss of opportunity — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for damages)

5

2018/C 72/06

Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

6

2018/C 72/07

Case C-70/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

6

2018/C 72/08

Case C-81/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

7

2018/C 72/09

Case C-102/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Driver’s rest periods — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 8(6) and (8) — Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle — Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods)

8

2018/C 72/10

Case C-158/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of employment conditions — Placement on the administrative status for special service leave — National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants)

8

2018/C 72/11

Case C-178/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) and (3) — Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement — Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company — Criminal conduct of a former director — Criminal conviction — Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director — Evidence — Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation)

9

2018/C 72/12

Case C-226/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Gas industry — Security of gas supply — Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 — Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers — Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 — Definition of protected customers — Article 8(2) — Additional obligation — Article 8(5) — Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level — National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 — Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned)

10

2018/C 72/13

Case C-255/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S (References for a preliminary ruling — Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations — National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting)

11

2018/C 72/14

Case C-268/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Notion of personal benefit)

11

2018/C 72/15

Case C-276/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of protection of the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 244 — Recovery of a customs debt — Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment — Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment — Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings — Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code)

12

2018/C 72/16

Case C-277/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 8 and 16 — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 8 and 13 — Operator designated as having significant market power — Price control — Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities — Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices — Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality)

13

2018/C 72/17

Case C-291/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 7(1) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel trade marks — Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) — Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment — Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations)

14

2018/C 72/18

Case C-322/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and freedom to conduct a business — Restrictions — Award of new licences for the online operation of gaming — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Judgment of the Constitutional Court — Whether or not the national court is obliged to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling)

15

2018/C 72/19

Case C-334/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Concept of use of vehicles — National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not suitable for use by motor vehicles, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ordinarily so used)

15

2018/C 72/20

Case C-364/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed — Action for annulment and for damages)

16

2018/C 72/21

Case C-372/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country — Scope of that regulation)

16

2018/C 72/22

Case C-393/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Scope — Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO — Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO — False or misleading indication — PDO Champagne used in the name of a foodstuff — The name Champagner Sorbet — Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient — Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic)

17

2018/C 72/23

Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Article 110(1) — No protection — Repair clause — Concept of component part of a complex product — Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance — Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the repair clause — Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design)

18

2018/C 72/24

Case C-419/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Sabine Simma Federspiel v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement for workers — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine — Directives 75/363/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Remuneration of trainee specialist doctors)

19

2018/C 72/25

Case C-434/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of personal data — Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination — Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers — Article 12(a) and (b) — Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification)

20

2018/C 72/26

Case C-442/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity — Retention of the status of self-employed person — Right of residence — Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State)

20

2018/C 72/27

Case C-462/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds)

21

2018/C 72/28

Case C-467/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Lis pendens — Concept of court — Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings)

22

2018/C 72/29

Case C-492/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Patents — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 18 — Plant-protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Article 17(2) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Fixing the date of expiry — Consequences of a judgment of the Court — Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry)

22

2018/C 72/30

Case C-500/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TUE — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)

23

2018/C 72/31

Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5 — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse — Presumption)

24

2018/C 72/32

Case C-516/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) — Austria) — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen v Agrarmarkt Austria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 — Articles 103b, 103d and 103 g — EU financial aid — Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX — Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations — Concept — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

24

2018/C 72/33

Case C-529/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Customs Code — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Cross-border transactions between related companies — Advance transfer pricing arrangement — Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period)

25

2018/C 72/34

Case C-649/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Scope — Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings)

26

2018/C 72/35

Case C-571/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence — Trial resulting in the decision — Scope — Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence — Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions — Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions — Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned)

27

2018/C 72/36

Case C-648/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE

27

2018/C 72/37

Case C-696/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2017 by Alex SCI against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-841/16, Alex v Commission

28

2018/C 72/38

Case C-14/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission

29

General Court

2018/C 72/39

Case T-76/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT (Technological research and development — EIT — Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation — Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community — Rejection of the applicant’s proposal — Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Unlawful delegation of powers)

31

2018/C 72/40

Case T-747/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF — Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Force of res judicata — Private investor test)

32

2018/C 72/41

Case T-68/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe — Position mark — Genuine use of the mark — Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

32

2018/C 72/42

Case T-204/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METABOX — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion)

33

2018/C 72/43

Case T-273/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METAPORN — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the services — Meaning of complementary services — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion)

34

2018/C 72/44

Case T-398/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS — Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

34

2018/C 72/45

Case T-630/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Notion of linked undertaking — Submission of a Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size — 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge — Authority of the ECHA — Cessation of production of the substance)

35

2018/C 72/46

Case T-804/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Dual Edge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001))

36

2018/C 72/47

Case T-231/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of dependent child — Concept of child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States legislation on the protection of minors’ — Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official)

36

2018/C 72/48

Case T-809/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

37

2018/C 72/49

Case T-816/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission

38

2018/C 72/50

Case T-819/17: Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO

39

2018/C 72/51

Case T-823/17: Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

40

2018/C 72/52

Case T-834/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

41

2018/C 72/53

Case T-835/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission

42

2018/C 72/54

Case T-837/17: Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)

43

2018/C 72/55

Case T-3/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)

43

2018/C 72/56

Case T-4/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)

44

2018/C 72/57

Case T-5/18: Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)

45

2018/C 72/58

Case T-6/18: Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)

46

2018/C 72/59

Case T-7/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

46

2018/C 72/60

Case T-9/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)

47

2018/C 72/61

Case T-12/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

47

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/1

---

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

(2018/C 072/01)

Last publication

OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

Past publications

OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL

(Case C-434/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 58(1) TFEU - Services in the field of transport - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Directive 2000/31/EC - Directive 98/34/EC - Information society services - Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys - Requirement for authorisation))

(2018/C 072/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi

Defendant: Uber Systems Spain SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU, read together with Article 58(1) TFEU, as well as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 20 July 1998, to which Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) refers, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-521/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 - Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area - Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned - Jurisdiction - Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 - Article 8(1) and (3) - Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU - Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) - Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 - Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a - Rights of defence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41(1) - Right to good administration - Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU - Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure - Existence of an infringement - Misrepresentations - Determination of the fine - Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect))

(2018/C 072/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Dumitriu-Segnana, A.F. Jensen and A. de Gregorio Merino, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J.-P. Keppenne, M. Clausen and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

(Case C-664/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - EU action in the field of water policy - Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) - Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Project that is likely to have an impact on water status - Administrative procedure for a permit - Environmental organisation - Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure - Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC - Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure))

(2018/C 072/04)

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a duly constituted environmental organisation operating in accordance with the requirements of national law must be able to contest before a court a decision granting a permit for a project that may be contrary to the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water as set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a duly constituted environmental organisation operating in accordance with the requirements of national law must be able to contest before a court a decision granting a permit for a project that may be contrary to the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water as set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

| 2. | The combined provisions of Article 9(3) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that deprive, in situations such as that in question in the main action, environmental organisations of the right to participate, as a party to the procedure, in a permit procedure that is intended to implement Directive 2000/60 and limit the right to bring proceedings contesting decisions resulting from such procedure solely to persons who do have that status. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The combined provisions of Article 9(3) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that deprive, in situations such as that in question in the main action, environmental organisations of the right to participate, as a party to the procedure, in a permit procedure that is intended to implement Directive 2000/60 and limit the right to bring proceedings contesting decisions resulting from such procedure solely to persons who do have that status.

| 3. | Subject to verification by the referring court of the relevant matters of fact and national law, Article 9(3) and (4) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that in question in the main action, a national procedural rule that imposes a time limit on an environmental organisation, pursuant to which a person loses the status of party to the procedure and therefore cannot bring an action against the decision resulting from that procedure if it failed to submit objections in good time following the opening of the administrative procedure and, at the very latest, during the oral phase of that procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Subject to verification by the referring court of the relevant matters of fact and national law, Article 9(3) and (4) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that in question in the main action, a national procedural rule that imposes a time limit on an environmental organisation, pursuant to which a person loses the status of party to the procedure and therefore cannot bring an action against the decision resulting from that procedure if it failed to submit objections in good time following the opening of the administrative procedure and, at the very latest, during the oral phase of that procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 29.3.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA

(Case C-677/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public services contracts - Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies - Cascade procedure - Weighting of sub-criteria within the award criteria - Principles of equal opportunity and transparency - Manifest errors of assessment - Failure to state reasons - Loss of opportunity - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Claim for damages))

(2018/C 072/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: N. Bambara, acting as Agent, P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA (represented by: M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 October 2015, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (T-299/11, EU:T:2015:757), in so far as:






  — | in paragraph 2 of the operative part, it orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 October 2015, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (T-299/11, EU:T:2015:757), in so far as:

—

in paragraph 2 of the operative part, it orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade, and

| — | in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part, it orders the parties to inform the General Court of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, to transmit to the General Court a statement of their views with supporting figures. |
| --- | --- |

—

in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part, it orders the parties to inform the General Court of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, to transmit to the General Court a statement of their views with supporting figures.

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

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder.

| 3. | Rejects the damages claim submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA in Case T-299/11. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Rejects the damages claim submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA in Case T-299/11.

| 4. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA

(Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra SA (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismiss the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismiss the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA

(Case C-70/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) (represented by: F. J. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra (represented by F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission (T-463/13 and T-464/13, not published, EU:T:2015:901); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission (T-463/13 and T-464/13, not published, EU:T:2015:901);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear the costs incurred by the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia, Spain) and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) in the present appeal and at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear the costs incurred by the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia, Spain) and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) in the present appeal and at first instance;

| 4. | Orders SES Astra SA to bears its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders SES Astra SA to bears its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-81/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-102/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Driver’s rest periods - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 8(6) and (8) - Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle - Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods))

(2018/C 072/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle.

| 2. | Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

(Case C-158/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Placement on the administrative status for special service leave - National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants))

(2018/C 072/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarita Isabel Vega González

Defendant: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’, referred to in that provision, includes the right for a worker who has been elected to a parliamentary role to benefit from special service leave, provided for by national legislation, under which the employment relationship is suspended such that the worker’s job and his entitlement to promotion are guaranteed until the end of that parliamentary term of office; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’, referred to in that provision, includes the right for a worker who has been elected to a parliamentary role to benefit from special service leave, provided for by national legislation, under which the employment relationship is suspended such that the worker’s job and his entitlement to promotion are guaranteed until the end of that parliamentary term of office;

| 2. | Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that absolutely precludes granting a fixed-term worker, so that he may hold political office, leave during which the employment relationship is suspended until reinstatement of that worker at the end of the term of office, when that right is conferred on permanent workers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that absolutely precludes granting a fixed-term worker, so that he may hold political office, leave during which the employment relationship is suspended until reinstatement of that worker at the end of the term of office, when that right is conferred on permanent workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

(Case C-178/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2) and (3) - Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement - Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company - Criminal conduct of a former director - Criminal conviction - Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director - Evidence - Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation))

(2018/C 072/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA

Defendants: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Intervening parties: Società Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA, Inso Sistemi per le Infrastrutture Sociali SpA

Operative part of the judgment

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, in particular Article 45(2)(c), (d) and (g) of that directive, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the contracting authority:

| — | to take into consideration, in accordance with the conditions it has laid down, a criminal conviction of the director of a tendering company, even if the conviction is not yet final, for an offence concerning the professional conduct of that company where the director ceased to perform his duties in the year preceding the publication of the tender notice, and |
| --- | --- |

—

to take into consideration, in accordance with the conditions it has laid down, a criminal conviction of the director of a tendering company, even if the conviction is not yet final, for an offence concerning the professional conduct of that company where the director ceased to perform his duties in the year preceding the publication of the tender notice, and

| — | to exclude that company from taking part in the tendering procedure at issue, on the ground that, by failing to declare the conviction which was not yet final, it had not fully and effectively dissociated itself from that director’s activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

to exclude that company from taking part in the tendering procedure at issue, on the ground that, by failing to declare the conviction which was not yet final, it had not fully and effectively dissociated itself from that director’s activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

(Case C-226/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Gas industry - Security of gas supply - Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 - Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers - Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 - Definition of ‘protected customers’ - Article 8(2) - Additional obligation - Article 8(5) - Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level - National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 - Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned))

(2018/C 072/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

Intervening parties: Storengy, Total Infrastructures Gaz France (TIGF)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, that imposes on natural gas suppliers a gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not among the protected customers listed in point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 of that regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of the regulation are complied with, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, that imposes on natural gas suppliers a gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not among the protected customers listed in point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 of that regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of the regulation are complied with, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | Article 8(5) of Regulation No 994/2010 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires natural gas suppliers to comply with their obligations to hold gas stocks, in order to guarantee security of supply in the event of crisis, necessarily and exclusively through infrastructure located within the territory of the Member State. In the present case, it is however for the referring court to ascertain whether the power which the competent authority has under the national legislation to take account of the ‘other regulatory instruments’ available to the suppliers concerned ensures that it is actually possible for them to meet their obligations at regional level or at European Union level. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(5) of Regulation No 994/2010 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires natural gas suppliers to comply with their obligations to hold gas stocks, in order to guarantee security of supply in the event of crisis, necessarily and exclusively through infrastructure located within the territory of the Member State. In the present case, it is however for the referring court to ascertain whether the power which the competent authority has under the national legislation to take account of the ‘other regulatory instruments’ available to the suppliers concerned ensures that it is actually possible for them to meet their obligations at regional level or at European Union level.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

(Case C-255/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations - National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting))

(2018/C 072/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Københavns Byret

Party/parties in the main proceedings

Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal sanctions where an unauthorised offer is made of gaming, lotteries or betting on the national territory, does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive. However, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for sanctions in the event of advertising for unauthorised gaming, lotteries or betting, does constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive, as it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for that provision of national law that its object and purpose was to extend a pre-existing prohibition on advertising to cover online gaming services, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-268/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Notion of ‘personal benefit’))

(2018/C 072/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2016, Binca Seafoods v Commission (T-94/15, not published, EU:T:2016:164); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2016, Binca Seafoods v Commission (T-94/15, not published, EU:T:2016:164);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-276/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of protection of the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 244 - Recovery of a customs debt - Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment - Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment - Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings - Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code))

(2018/C 072/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prequ' Italia Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Operative part of the judgment

The right of any person to be heard before the adoption of a decision likely to adversely affect his interests must be interpreted as meaning that the rights of defence of the addressee of an amended tax assessment adopted by the customs authorities, in the absence of a prior hearing of the person concerned, are not infringed if the national legislation which allows the person concerned to contest that measure in the context of an administrative review merely provides the possibility to request the suspension of the implementation of that measure until its possible amendment by referring to Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 without the initiation of an administrative appeal automatically suspending the implementation of the contested measure, since the application of the second paragraph of Article 244 of that regulation, by the customs authorities, does not restrict the grant of a suspension of implementation where there are reasons to doubt the conformity of the contested decision with the customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-277/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 8 and 16 - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 8 and 13 - Operator designated as having significant market power - Price control - Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities - Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices - Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality))

(2018/C 072/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Intervener in support of the defendant: Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8(4) and Article 13 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘the Access Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices is imposed by a national regulatory authority on an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market, that national regulatory authority may, in order to promote efficiency and sustainable competition, set the prices of the services covered by such an obligation below the level of the costs incurred by that operator to provide them, if those costs are higher than the costs of an efficient operator, which is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8(4) and Article 13 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘the Access Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices is imposed by a national regulatory authority on an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market, that national regulatory authority may, in order to promote efficiency and sustainable competition, set the prices of the services covered by such an obligation below the level of the costs incurred by that operator to provide them, if those costs are higher than the costs of an efficient operator, which is for the referring court to verify.

| 2. | Article 8(4) and Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in combination with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority may require an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market and under an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices, to set its prices annually on the basis of the most up-to-date data and to submit those prices to it for verification together with justification before they become applicable, provided that such obligations are based on the nature of the problem identified, are proportionate and are justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), which is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(4) and Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in combination with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority may require an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market and under an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices, to set its prices annually on the basis of the most up-to-date data and to submit those prices to it for verification together with justification before they become applicable, provided that such obligations are based on the nature of the problem identified, are proportionate and are justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), which is for the referring court to verify.

| 3. | Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices has been imposed on an operator on the basis of Article 13(1) of that directive, that operator may be required to adjust its prices before or after it has started to apply them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices has been imposed on an operator on the basis of Article 13(1) of that directive, that operator may be required to adjust its prices before or after it has started to apply them.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL

(Case C-291/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel trade marks - Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) - Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment - Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations))

(2018/C 072/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schweppes SA

Defendants: Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL

Other parties: Orangina Schweppes Holding BV, Schweppes International Ltd, and Exclusivas Ramírez SL,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of 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, read in the light of Article 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of a national trade mark from opposing the import of identical goods bearing the same mark originating in another Member State in which that mark, which initially belonged to that proprietor, is now owned by a third party which has acquired the rights thereto by assignment, when, following that assignment,

| — | the proprietor, either acting alone or maintaining its coordinated trade mark strategy with that third party, has actively and deliberately continued to promote the appearance or image of a single global trade mark, thereby generating or increasing confusion on the part of the public concerned as to the commercial origin of goods bearing that mark, |
| --- | --- |

—

the proprietor, either acting alone or maintaining its coordinated trade mark strategy with that third party, has actively and deliberately continued to promote the appearance or image of a single global trade mark, thereby generating or increasing confusion on the part of the public concerned as to the commercial origin of goods bearing that mark,

or

| — | there exist economic links between the proprietor and that third party, inasmuch as they coordinate their commercial policies or reach an agreement in order to exercise joint control over the use of the trade mark, so that it is possible for them to determine, directly or indirectly, the goods to which the trade mark is affixed and to control the quality of those goods. |
| --- | --- |

—

there exist economic links between the proprietor and that third party, inasmuch as they coordinate their commercial policies or reach an agreement in order to exercise joint control over the use of the trade mark, so that it is possible for them to determine, directly or indirectly, the goods to which the trade mark is affixed and to control the quality of those goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

(Case C-322/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and freedom to conduct a business - Restrictions - Award of new licences for the online operation of gaming - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations - Judgment of the Constitutional Court - Whether or not the national court is obliged to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling))

(2018/C 072/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Global Starnet Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 267(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy is required, in principle, to refer a question for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law even if, in the course of the same national proceedings, the constitutional court of the Member State concerned has assessed the constitutionality of national rules in the light of regulatory parameters with content similar to rules under EU law; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy is required, in principle, to refer a question for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law even if, in the course of the same national proceedings, the constitutional court of the Member State concerned has assessed the constitutionality of national rules in the light of regulatory parameters with content similar to rules under EU law;

| 2. | Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on persons who are already concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, new conditions for the exercise of their activity by means of an addendum to the existing agreement, inasmuch as the referring court considers that that legislation may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the general interest, is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on persons who are already concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, new conditions for the exercise of their activity by means of an addendum to the existing agreement, inasmuch as the referring court considers that that legislation may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the general interest, is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

(Case C-334/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’))

(2018/C 072/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Luis Núñez Torreiro

Defendants: AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible to exclude from compulsory insurance cover injuries and damage that result from the driving of motor vehicles on roads or terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of roads or terrain which, although not suitable for that purpose, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission

(Case C-364/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed - Action for annulment and for damages))

(2018/C 072/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Trioplast Industrier AB (represented by: T. Pettersson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/16

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-372/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country - Scope of that regulation))

(2018/C 072/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

(Case C-393/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Scope - Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO - Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO - False or misleading indication - PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff - The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ - Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient - Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic))

(2018/C 072/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Defendant: Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

Intervener in support of the defendant: Galana NV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 October 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 are to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those provisions covers a situation where a protected designation of origin, such as ‘Champagne’, is used as part of the name under which a foodstuff is sold, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, and where that foodstuff does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 October 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 are to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those provisions covers a situation where a protected designation of origin, such as ‘Champagne’, is used as part of the name under which a foodstuff is sold, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, and where that foodstuff does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications.

| 2. | Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, constitutes exploitation of the reputation of a protected designation of origin, within the meaning of those provisions, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, constitutes exploitation of the reputation of a protected designation of origin, within the meaning of those provisions, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff.

| 3. | Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, does not constitute misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, does not constitute misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of those provisions.

| 4. | Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as being applicable both to false or misleading indications which are liable to convey a false impression as to the geographical origin of the product concerned and to false or misleading indications relating to the nature or essential qualities of the product. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as being applicable both to false or misleading indications which are liable to convey a false impression as to the geographical origin of the product concerned and to false or misleading indications relating to the nature or essential qualities of the product.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

(Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Article 110(1) - No protection - ‘Repair’ clause - Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ - Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance - Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause - Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design))

(2018/C 072/23)

Languages of the case: German and Italian

Referring courts

Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Acacia Srl (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato (C-435/16)

Defendants: Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product.

| 2. | Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market.

| 3. | Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Sabine Simma Federspiel v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA

(Case C-419/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement for workers - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine - Directives 75/363/EEC and 93/16/EEC - Remuneration of trainee specialist doctors))

(2018/C 072/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabine Simma Federspiel

Defendants: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as Article 24(1)(c) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as Article 24(1)(c) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest.

| 2. | Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest, unless the measures laid down by that legislation do not actually contribute to the pursuit of the objectives of protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system and go beyond what is necessary in that regard, which is a matter for the referring court to assess. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest, unless the measures laid down by that legislation do not actually contribute to the pursuit of the objectives of protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system and go beyond what is necessary in that regard, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner

(Case C-434/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination - Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers - Article 12(a) and (b) - Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification))

(2018/C 072/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Nowak

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constitute personal data, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-442/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity - Retention of the status of self-employed person - Right of residence - Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State))

(2018/C 072/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Florea Gusa

Respondents: Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State retains the status of self-employed person for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive where, after having lawfully resided in and worked as a self-employed person in another Member State for approximately four years, that national has ceased that activity, because of a duly recorded absence of work owing to reasons beyond his control, and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office of the latter Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-462/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds))

(2018/C 072/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of the principles defined by the Court in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31), regarding the determination of the taxable amount for value added tax and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the discount granted, under national law, by a pharmaceutical company to a private health insurance company results, for the purposes of that article, in a reduction of the taxable amount in favour of that pharmaceutical company, where it supplies medicinal products via wholesalers to pharmacies which make supplies to persons covered by private health insurance that reimburses the purchase price of the medicinal products to persons it insures.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

(Case C-467/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Lis pendens - Concept of court - Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings))

(2018/C 072/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27 and 30 the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory arbitration procedure was lodged before an arbitration authority under Swiss law is the date on which a ‘court’ is deemed to be seised.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

(Case C-492/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 18 - Plant-protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Article 17(2) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Fixing the date of expiry - Consequences of a judgment of the Court - Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry))

(2018/C 072/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Incyte Corporation

Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 18 du Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in the light of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market, as stated in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, on the basis of which the national authority competent for granting such a certificate calculated the duration of the certificate, is incorrect in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the date led to a method for calculating the duration of the certificate which does not comply with the requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009, as interpreted by a subsequent judgment of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18 du Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in the light of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market, as stated in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, on the basis of which the national authority competent for granting such a certificate calculated the duration of the certificate, is incorrect in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the date led to a method for calculating the duration of the certificate which does not comply with the requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009, as interpreted by a subsequent judgment of the Court.

| 2. | Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, read in the light of recital 17 and of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that set out in point 1 of this operative part, the holder of a supplementary protection certificate may, under Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, bring an appeal for rectification of the duration stated in the certificate, provided that that certificate has not expired. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, read in the light of recital 17 and of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that set out in point 1 of this operative part, the holder of a supplementary protection certificate may, under Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, bring an appeal for rectification of the duration stated in the certificate, provided that that certificate has not expired.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

(Case C-500/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemptions - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT - Article 4(3) TUE - Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation - Rights conferred on individuals - Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability - Effects of a judgment of the Court - Principle of legal certainty))

(2018/C 072/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

In the presence of: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5 - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 072/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16)

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006 and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where persons have holdings in a non-resident parent company who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption from withholding tax if they received the dividends from a resident subsidiary directly, denies, provided one of the conditions set by that legislation is satisfied, relief from tax on income from capital tax on distributions of profits to that parent company.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) — Austria) — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen v Agrarmarkt Austria

(Case C-516/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 - Articles 103b, 103d and 103 g - EU financial aid - Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX - Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations - Concept - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 072/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen

Defendant: Agrarmarkt Austria

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, in so far as it refers to investments made ‘on holdings and/or premises of producer organisations’, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the mere fact that an investment made in the context of an operational programme covered by Article 60(1) of that regulation is located on land which is owned by a third party, and not the producer organisation concerned, is not, in principle, under point 23 of Annex IX, a ground for non-eligibility of aid for the expenditure incurred, by that producer organisation, in respect of that investment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, in so far as it refers to investments made ‘on holdings and/or premises of producer organisations’, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the mere fact that an investment made in the context of an operational programme covered by Article 60(1) of that regulation is located on land which is owned by a third party, and not the producer organisation concerned, is not, in principle, under point 23 of Annex IX, a ground for non-eligibility of aid for the expenditure incurred, by that producer organisation, in respect of that investment;

| — | point 23 of Annex IX relates to investments made on holdings and/or premises which are, in law and in fact, under the exclusive control of that producer organisation, so that any use of those investments for the benefit of a third party be excluded. |
| --- | --- |

—

point 23 of Annex IX relates to investments made on holdings and/or premises which are, in law and in fact, under the exclusive control of that producer organisation, so that any use of those investments for the benefit of a third party be excluded.

| 2. | The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the competent national authority, first, refusing payment of the amount of the financial aid which had been requested by a producer organisation for an investment finally considered to be ineligible for that aid pursuant to point 23 of Annex IX to Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 and, second, requesting the producer organisation to reimburse the aid already received for that investment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the competent national authority, first, refusing payment of the amount of the financial aid which had been requested by a producer organisation for an investment finally considered to be ineligible for that aid pursuant to point 23 of Annex IX to Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 and, second, requesting the producer organisation to reimburse the aid already received for that investment.

| 3. | In circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a temporal limitation of the effects of the present judgment, it does not preclude the principle of legal certainty being taken into account in order to exclude the recovery of aid unduly paid, provided that the conditions laid down be the same as for the recovery of purely national financial payments, that the interests of the European Union be taken fully into account and that the good faith of the beneficiary of the aid be established. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a temporal limitation of the effects of the present judgment, it does not preclude the principle of legal certainty being taken into account in order to exclude the recovery of aid unduly paid, provided that the conditions laid down be the same as for the recovery of purely national financial payments, that the interests of the European Union be taken fully into account and that the good faith of the beneficiary of the aid be established.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/25

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-529/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Customs Code - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Cross-border transactions between related companies - Advance transfer pricing arrangement - Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period))

(2018/C 072/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/26

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

(Case C-649/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 072/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtschof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, SC Europa ZV II a.s., SC Europa LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., SC Europa BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., Mesto Banská Bystrica

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings, and that such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic

(Case C-571/17 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Scope - Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence - Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions - Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions - Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned))

(2018/C 072/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samet Ardic

Operative part of the judgment

Where a party has appeared in person in criminal proceedings that result in a judicial decision which definitively finds him guilty of an offence and, as a consequence, imposes a custodial sentence the execution of which is subsequently suspended in part, subject to certain conditions, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including subsequent proceedings in which that suspension is revoked on grounds of infringement of those conditions during the probationary period, provided that the revocation decision adopted at the end of those proceedings does not change the nature or the level of the sentence initially imposed.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE

(Case C-648/17)

(2018/C 072/36)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Balcia Insurance SE

Defendant: AS Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle?

| 2 | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger? |
| --- | --- |

2

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger?

---

(1)  English special edition: Series I Volume 1972(II) p. 360.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/28

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2017 by Alex SCI against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-841/16, Alex v Commission

(Case C-696/17 P)

(2018/C 072/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Alex SCI (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 10 October 2017 in full, except insofar as it recognises that the Commission’s decision of 21 September 2016 is challengeable
  ruling afresh on the case:






  — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2016; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside the order delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 10 October 2017 in full, except insofar as it recognises that the Commission’s decision of 21 September 2016 is challengeable

ruling afresh on the case:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2016;

| — | declare the aid granted to CABAB by FEDER, the French State, the Regional Council of Aquitaine and the General Council of Pyrénées-Atlantiques unlawful and incompatible with the common market; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the aid granted to CABAB by FEDER, the French State, the Regional Council of Aquitaine and the General Council of Pyrénées-Atlantiques unlawful and incompatible with the common market;

| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees in the amount of EUR 5 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees in the amount of EUR 5 000.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

A.   Admissibility

The appellant requests that the General Court’s ruling on the decision’s openness to challenge be upheld. The letter of 21 September 2016 constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

As regards Alex SCI’s standing and interest in bringing the proceedings, the appellant requests that the order of the General Court be altered. Its trading position is affected for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

B.   Substance

The first ground of appeal alleges formal illegality on the grounds of failure to provide adequate reasons. No legal, textual or jurisprudential basis is given in the decision of 21 September 2016, with the result that, merely from reading it, Alex SCI, represented by its managing director, does not understand that decision. To a high degree lacking adequate legal and factual reasoning, the decision is vitiated by formal illegality.

The second ground of appeal alleges substantive illegality (existence of State aid and lack of notification). The Communauté d’Agglomération Côte-basque — Adour (‘CABAB’) sought, as part of its economic strategy, to develop the ‘Technocité’ site in Bayonne in order to establish a specialised platform in the field of aviation. For that purpose, it requested financing from FEDER, the French State, the Regional Council of Aquitaine and the General Council of Pyrénées-Atlantiques in order for them to co-finance its project through the payment, from each of them, of the sum of EUR 1 000 000.

On the one hand, all the constituent elements of State aid being present, those payments constitute non-notified State aid, contrary to Article 108 TFEU.

On the other hand, those payments are incompatible with the common market. The Technocité project is in fact an industrial and tertiary platform specialised in the development of the most advanced technologies in the fields of aviation, space and embedded systems. That sector is eminently open to competition. The aid is therefore contrary to Article 107 TFEU.

Last, as regards the failure to perform the aid payment agreements, it must be noted that the purpose of those agreements is to finance a project of a ‘Technocité aviation hub’, for developing the site and making it ‘a platform specialised in the research and development of the most advanced technologies in the fields of aviation, space and embedded systems’. The Technocité zone covers all types of activities, which are carried out by unrelated companies such as Fidal, Avantis, Decra, Sepa, Trescal, KPMG, Capgemini...., that is to say, companies involved in fields that do not fall within the sphere of aviation.

In short, the State aid must be annulled and the sums repaid (see, inter alia, Regulations No 734/2013 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) Article 4(1) and (4); French Council of State (CE), 2 June 1992, Rec. p. 165; CE, 6 November 1998, Rec. p. 397; Court of Justice, 11 July 1996, SFEI, Case C-39/94).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the Treaty (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 15).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/29

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission

(Case C-14/18 P)

(2018/C 072/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Alfamicro disputes the ruling of the General Court dismissing the action brought by Alfamicro and ordering it to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849,93, together with interest accruing at the daily rate of EUR 26,88 until final payment. Alfamicro submits that the General Court should have ruled on the action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, and not on the basis of Article 272 TFEU. In addition, Alfamicro submits that, in its decision, which is administrative in nature, the Commission, with the acceptance of the General Court, did not observe the principles of proportionality, good faith and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alfamicro disputes the ruling of the General Court dismissing the action brought by Alfamicro and ordering it to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849,93, together with interest accruing at the daily rate of EUR 26,88 until final payment. Alfamicro submits that the General Court should have ruled on the action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, and not on the basis of Article 272 TFEU. In addition, Alfamicro submits that, in its decision, which is administrative in nature, the Commission, with the acceptance of the General Court, did not observe the principles of proportionality, good faith and legal certainty.

| — | Alfamicro submits that both the analysis and the context of the Commission’s letter of 28 October 2014 show that that letter constitutes a decision-making, administrative act, that is to say, an administrative decision. The terms in which it is drafted, the fact that it is based on an audit of the Court of Auditors, the fact that the Commission extrapolated the conclusions of the audit to all other agreements to which the appellant is a party and the adjustments made by the Commission all point to this being an administrative decision. The judgment of the General Court, which reflects the Court’s opinion that the action brought should be classified as a declarative action and not an action challenging an administrative decision, seriously limits the appellant’s rights of defence. In addition, Alfamicro submits that the General Court seriously infringed the principle of the equality of the parties and the principle of contractual balance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alfamicro submits that both the analysis and the context of the Commission’s letter of 28 October 2014 show that that letter constitutes a decision-making, administrative act, that is to say, an administrative decision. The terms in which it is drafted, the fact that it is based on an audit of the Court of Auditors, the fact that the Commission extrapolated the conclusions of the audit to all other agreements to which the appellant is a party and the adjustments made by the Commission all point to this being an administrative decision. The judgment of the General Court, which reflects the Court’s opinion that the action brought should be classified as a declarative action and not an action challenging an administrative decision, seriously limits the appellant’s rights of defence. In addition, Alfamicro submits that the General Court seriously infringed the principle of the equality of the parties and the principle of contractual balance.

| — | By reducing the grant agreed with the appellant by more than 93 %, the Commission did not take appropriate measures, as was required by the grant agreement, and thus infringed the principle of proportionality. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court fails to observe, and indeed infringes, the principle of proportionality. Moreover, where the Commission is required to take appropriate measures, but only takes inappropriate, arbitrary measures, then there is no legal certainty. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court also fails to observe the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

By reducing the grant agreed with the appellant by more than 93 %, the Commission did not take appropriate measures, as was required by the grant agreement, and thus infringed the principle of proportionality. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court fails to observe, and indeed infringes, the principle of proportionality. Moreover, where the Commission is required to take appropriate measures, but only takes inappropriate, arbitrary measures, then there is no legal certainty. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court also fails to observe the principle of legal certainty.

---

General Court

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT

(Case T-76/15) (1)

((Technological research and development - EIT - Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation - Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community - Rejection of the applicant’s proposal - Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 - Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Unlawful delegation of powers))

(2018/C 072/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kenup Foundation (Kalkara, Malta) Candena GmbH (Luneburg, Germany), CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and subsequently by: U. Soltész, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and finally by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (represented by: M. Kern, acting as Agent, and P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Republic of Malta (represented by: M.E. Perici Calascione, lawyer) and Stiftung Universität Lüneburg (represented by: F. Oehl, lawyer)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the EIT designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the European Institute of Innovation and Technology designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the European Institute of Innovation and Technology designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal;

| 2. | Orders the EIT to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kenup Foundation, Candena GmbH, CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo and Evotec AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIT to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kenup Foundation, Candena GmbH, CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo and Evotec AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-747/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF - Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Force of res judicata - Private investor test))

(2018/C 072/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network implemented by France in favour of EDF (OJ 2016, L 34, p. 152).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)

(Case T-68/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Position mark - Genuine use of the mark - Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 072/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Munich, SL (Capellades, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 2345/2014-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Deichman and Munich.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX)

(Case T-204/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METABOX - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 072/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 307/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)

(Case T-273/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METAPORN - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the services - Meaning of complementary services - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 072/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)

(Case T-398/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS - Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 072/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: J. Schmitt, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hasmik Nersesyan (Borgloon, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Starbucks Corp. and Ms Hasmik Nersesyan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA

(Case T-630/16) (1)

((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Notion of linked undertaking - Submission of a ‘Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size’ - 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge - Authority of the ECHA - Cessation of production of the substance))

(2018/C 072/45)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the ECHA of 7 July 2016 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge)

(Case T-804/16) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Dual Edge - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 072/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 (Case R 832/2016-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Dual Edge as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council

(Case T-231/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official))

(2018/C 072/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 22 June 2016, by which the appointing authority of that institution refused to recognise that the applicant’s granddaughter was a ‘dependent child’ of the applicant within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/37

---

Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T-809/17)

(2018/C 072/48)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Primarily, declare whether the points awarded to each tenderer are accurate on the basis of the comparison of the bids submitted and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

—

Primarily, declare whether the points awarded to each tenderer are accurate on the basis of the comparison of the bids submitted and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency.

| — | In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 10 July 2017 concerning the result of the public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 10 July 2017 concerning the result of the public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

| — | In the further alternative, annul the public procurement procedures. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, annul the public procurement procedures.

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different approaches to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures, in that it assessed identical activities differently in each procedure. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different approaches to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures, in that it assessed identical activities differently in each procedure. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers by not sending the applicant the information required in the public procurement procedures. (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers by not sending the applicant the information required in the public procurement procedures. (2)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the transparency of public procurement procedures, inasmuch as the defendant only published the result of the procedure in the Official Journal out of time and without including all the information prescribed by the EU Directive. (3) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the transparency of public procurement procedures, inasmuch as the defendant only published the result of the procedure in the Official Journal out of time and without including all the information prescribed by the EU Directive. (3)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the Directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (4) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the Directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (4)

---

(1)  Recitals 1 and 90 of 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).

(2)  Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(3)  Article 50 of 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).

(4)  Annex V, Part D (point 16) of 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).

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/38

---

Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-816/17)

(2018/C 072/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Steichen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | principally, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon;

| — | alternatively, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon to the extent that it orders recovery of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon to the extent that it orders recovery of the aid;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, which is divided into three parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish the existence of an advantage in favour of Amazon EU S.à r.l. (‘LuxOpCo’).






  — | First part, alleging that the application of the tax ruling and its renewal in 2011 did not lead to any advantage being granted inasmuch as the royalty fee that a third party would have paid for a licence for intangible assets would have been greater than the fee paid by LuxOpCo to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (‘LuxSCS’) under the licence agreement. The applicant maintains that the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon (‘the contested decision’) erred in finding that the royalty fee actually paid by LuxOpCo differs from the arm’s-length price. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, which is divided into three parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish the existence of an advantage in favour of Amazon EU S.à r.l. (‘LuxOpCo’).

—

First part, alleging that the application of the tax ruling and its renewal in 2011 did not lead to any advantage being granted inasmuch as the royalty fee that a third party would have paid for a licence for intangible assets would have been greater than the fee paid by LuxOpCo to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (‘LuxSCS’) under the licence agreement. The applicant maintains that the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon (‘the contested decision’) erred in finding that the royalty fee actually paid by LuxOpCo differs from the arm’s-length price.

| — | Second part, alleging manifest errors of fact and of law that vitiate the analysis carried out in the contested decision relating to an alleged misapplication of the transactional net margin method in the context of the tax ruling, both in the choice of the tested party and in the application of the parameters of that method. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging manifest errors of fact and of law that vitiate the analysis carried out in the contested decision relating to an alleged misapplication of the transactional net margin method in the context of the tax ruling, both in the choice of the tested party and in the application of the parameters of that method.

| — | Third part, alleging that, on the contrary, it is the Commission’s transfer pricing calculations in the contested decision that would lead to an outcome that deviates clearly from the arm’s-length principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third part, alleging that, on the contrary, it is the Commission’s transfer pricing calculations in the contested decision that would lead to an outcome that deviates clearly from the arm’s-length principle.

| 2. | Second plea in law, which is divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish that the tax ruling at issue is selective in nature:






  — | First part, alleging that the Commission wrongly assumed that the tax ruling at issue was selective, whereas, according to the case-law, the Commission cannot conclude that there is an advantage in order to assume that that advantage is selective, but must, in the context of its analysis of selectivity, first define the relevant frame of reference, then identify a derogation from that frame of reference. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, which is divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish that the tax ruling at issue is selective in nature:

—

First part, alleging that the Commission wrongly assumed that the tax ruling at issue was selective, whereas, according to the case-law, the Commission cannot conclude that there is an advantage in order to assume that that advantage is selective, but must, in the context of its analysis of selectivity, first define the relevant frame of reference, then identify a derogation from that frame of reference.

| — | Second part, alleging that the Commission has failed to provide evidence of the alleged selectivity of the aid referred to in its alternative reasoning. Those two alternative findings of selectivity are manifestly flawed in that the Commission erred as to the frames of reference and, in any event, failed to establish that there was any derogation from them. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging that the Commission has failed to provide evidence of the alleged selectivity of the aid referred to in its alternative reasoning. Those two alternative findings of selectivity are manifestly flawed in that the Commission erred as to the frames of reference and, in any event, failed to establish that there was any derogation from them.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 TFEU and 5 TFEU in that the Commission undertook covert fiscal harmonisation by imposing its own interpretation of the ‘right’ transfer pricing that LuxOpCo is deemed to have to pay to LuxSCS under the licence agreement at issue. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the Commission in fact exploited the rules on State aid in order to undertake covert fiscal harmonisation on transfer pricing, thereby infringing the exclusive competence of the Member States in the area of direct taxation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 TFEU and 5 TFEU in that the Commission undertook covert fiscal harmonisation by imposing its own interpretation of the ‘right’ transfer pricing that LuxOpCo is deemed to have to pay to LuxSCS under the licence agreement at issue. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the Commission in fact exploited the rules on State aid in order to undertake covert fiscal harmonisation on transfer pricing, thereby infringing the exclusive competence of the Member States in the area of direct taxation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation 2015/1589 and of the rights of the defence, in that the Commission infringed the rights of the defence by adopting a decision that summarily rejected ex post documentation provided by Amazon and the central argument of which, namely an error in the choice of the tested party for the purposes of the transactional net margin method, could not be commented on in more detail by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or by Amazon. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation 2015/1589 and of the rights of the defence, in that the Commission infringed the rights of the defence by adopting a decision that summarily rejected ex post documentation provided by Amazon and the central argument of which, namely an error in the choice of the tested party for the purposes of the transactional net margin method, could not be commented on in more detail by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or by Amazon.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the recovery of the aid is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, taking into account the good faith of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the application of transfer pricing and the fact that the new transfer pricing approach applied by the Commission in the contested decision could not have been foreseen. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the recovery of the aid is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, taking into account the good faith of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the application of transfer pricing and the fact that the new transfer pricing approach applied by the Commission in the contested decision could not have been foreseen.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/39

---

Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO

(Case T-819/17)

(2018/C 072/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mercedes Sierra (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant to delete from the applicant’s ‘Appraisal Report’ for the year 2016 any criticism of her communication style, on the ground that it constitutes a misrepresentation and is contrary to the fundamental right of the individual to freely express ideas and opinions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against EUIPO’s decision adopted in the applicant’s annual performance appraisal for the year 2016.

Specifically, the applicant requests that certain assessments be removed from the ‘Appraisal Report’.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on her right to freedom of expression whilst at work without fear of reprisal.

The applicant considers her right to freedom of expression to have been infringed and considers that the reason given for the decision not to promote the official, as merited on the basis of the appraisal of her commitment, the quality and performance of her work, denies her the opportunity to defend herself.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/40

---

Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

(Case T-823/17)

(2018/C 072/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Etnia Dreams SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Etnik’ — Application for registration No 15 721 301.

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 880/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, as a consequence of the claim being upheld, give a new judgment allowing opposition No B 2 791 229 and therefore, after the appropriate legal formalities, reject the application for registration of the EU trademark No 15 721 301 ‘Etnik’ for Classes 3 and 35, under Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTMR, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the Community trade mark No 11 017 241, the proprietor of which is Etnia Dreams SL.

Pleas in law

| — | The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months.

| — | Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.

| — | Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| — | Breach of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/41

---

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-834/17)

(2018/C 072/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, solicitor, F. Hoseinian and W. Knibbeler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest;

| — | compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and

| — | 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 applicant seeks compensation under Article 340 TFEU for the loss suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the General Court on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13.

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer rights on UPS. According to the applicant, each breach individually underpinned the Decision and prevented the applicant from acquiring TNT and from materialising the benefits associated with that proposed transaction.

The applicant claims that these breaches are a serious breach of the law regarding (1) the price concentration analysis; (2) the efficiencies analysis; (3) the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness; and (4) the assessment of the closeness of competition made in the Decision.

According to the applicant, each of these breaches, individually or considered together, is responsible for the unlawful Decision and establishes the Union’s liability under Article 340 TFEU.

The applicant further claims that these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT. Without any one of the erroneous price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the closeness of competition assessment, so the applicant claims, no ordinarily prudent and diligent administration would have prohibited the proposed Transaction.

According to the applicant, it should therefore be put in the position it would have been in had the unlawful Decision not been adopted by way of compensation under Article 340 TFEU.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/42

---

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission

(Case T-835/17)

(2018/C 072/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister and G. Forwood, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24)

| — | order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ [2016] L 176/21).

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/43

---

Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)

(Case T-837/17)

(2018/C 072/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Alexandru Negru (Iaşi, Romania) (represented by: I.-M. Iliescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Skyprivate’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2017 in Case R 349/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/43

---

Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)

(Case T-3/18)

(2018/C 072/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 9 865 651

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 2370/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the action;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 9 865 651 ‘ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 9 865 651 ‘ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/44

---

Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)

(Case T-4/18)

(2018/C 072/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 11 197 647

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 2371/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the action;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 11 197 647 ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 11 197 647 ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/45

---

Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)

(Case T-5/18)

(2018/C 072/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Hamburg BEER COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 15 272 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 in Case R 436/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/46

---

Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)

(Case T-6/18)

(2018/C 072/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Hamburg Beer Company’ — Application for registration No 15 272 784

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO 29 September 2017 in Case R 437/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/46

---

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

(Case T-7/18)

(2018/C 072/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: inforsacom Informationssysteme GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Business and technology working as one’ –Application for registration No 15 272 586

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 in Case R 808/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/47

---

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)

(Case T-9/18)

(2018/C 072/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Addiko Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Seling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING’ — Application for registration No 16 133 449

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 in Case R 1090/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/47

---

Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T-12/18)

(2018/C 072/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triumph’ — Application for registration No 6 717 672

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 665/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25;

| — | reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---