# Official Journal C 330/2 Oc

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 330 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 602 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 330

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 602 October 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2017/C 330/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 330/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2017/C 330/02 | Case C-261/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union | 2 |
| 2017/C 330/03 | Case C-327/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Cryo-Save AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15, Cryo-Save AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office | 2 |
| 2017/C 330/04 | Case C-344/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando | 3 |
| 2017/C 330/05 | Case C-350/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana | 4 |
| 2017/C 330/06 | Case C-351/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. | 5 |
| 2017/C 330/07 | Case C-375/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli | 5 |
| 2017/C 330/08 | Case C-412/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany lodged on 10 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH | 6 |
| 2017/C 330/09 | Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier | 7 |
| 2017/C 330/10 | Case C-449/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel | 8 |
| 2017/C 330/11 | Case C-451/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Walltopia AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo | 9 |
| 2017/C 330/12 | Case C-465/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen | 9 |
| | General Court |
| 2017/C 330/13 | Case T-454/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Pro NGO! v Commission | 11 |
| 2017/C 330/14 | Case T-463/17: Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE) | 11 |
| 2017/C 330/15 | Case T-472/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on) | 12 |
| 2017/C 330/16 | Case T-482/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB | 13 |
| 2017/C 330/17 | Case T-483/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — García Suárez and Others v Commission and SRB | 13 |
| 2017/C 330/18 | Case T-484/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB | 14 |
| 2017/C 330/19 | Case T-491/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission | 14 |
| 2017/C 330/20 | Case T-497/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB | 15 |
| 2017/C 330/21 | Case T-498/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB | 16 |
| 2017/C 330/22 | Case T-499/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB | 17 |
| 2017/C 330/23 | Case T-533/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna) | 18 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2017/C 330/02

Case C-261/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

2

2017/C 330/03

Case C-327/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Cryo-Save AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15, Cryo-Save AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

2

2017/C 330/04

Case C-344/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

3

2017/C 330/05

Case C-350/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana

4

2017/C 330/06

Case C-351/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.

5

2017/C 330/07

Case C-375/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

5

2017/C 330/08

Case C-412/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany lodged on 10 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH

6

2017/C 330/09

Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

7

2017/C 330/10

Case C-449/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

8

2017/C 330/11

Case C-451/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Walltopia AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

9

2017/C 330/12

Case C-465/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen

9

General Court

2017/C 330/13

Case T-454/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Pro NGO! v Commission

11

2017/C 330/14

Case T-463/17: Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)

11

2017/C 330/15

Case T-472/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)

12

2017/C 330/16

Case T-482/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB

13

2017/C 330/17

Case T-483/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — García Suárez and Others v Commission and SRB

13

2017/C 330/18

Case T-484/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB

14

2017/C 330/19

Case T-491/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

14

2017/C 330/20

Case T-497/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB

15

2017/C 330/21

Case T-498/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB

16

2017/C 330/22

Case T-499/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB

17

2017/C 330/23

Case T-533/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

18

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/1

---

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

(2017/C 330/01)

Last publication

OJ C 318, 25.9.2017

Past publications

OJ C 309, 18.9.2017

OJ C 300, 11.9.2017

OJ C 293, 4.9.2017

OJ C 283, 28.8.2017

OJ C 277, 21.8.2017

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/2

---

Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-261/17 P)

(2017/C 330/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 13 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/2

---

Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Cryo-Save AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15, Cryo-Save AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-327/17 P)

(2017/C 330/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Cryo-Save AG (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15;

| — | order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward one ground of appeal alleging an infringement of Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, (1) of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, (2) in conjunction with Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rules 37 and 39 of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. The appellant argues that the infringement consists of the General Court’s decision to find that the first plea in law of the applicant, who is the appellant in the present case, was inadmissible.

By its first plea in law the applicant and appellant contested the admissibility of the application for revocation of its EU trade mark. In support thereof, it asserted that, contrary to Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95, that application was insufficiently reasoned.

The General Court decided that the first plea in law put forward by the applicant and appellant was inadmissible, as the latter had failed to allege any infringement of the formal requirements of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95, the examination of the complaint was limited to examining whether there had been genuine use, and the Board of Appeal was therefore not required to consider the propriety of the application for revocation. The General Court took the view that any assessment by it of the first plea in law would amount to an extension of the factual and legal context, something which was a matter for the Board of Appeal.

The applicant and appellant counters this by submitting that the admissibility of an application for revocation constitutes a precondition for a substantive decision, which must be assessed by the defendant at every stage of the proceedings of its own motion (Article 76([1]), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 39(1) and Rule 40(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 2868/95, Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95). It is therefore inconsequential whether or not the applicant and appellant had specifically raised the issue of the admissibility of the application for revocation before the Board of Appeal.

Furthermore, the appellant maintains that the defendant’s Cancellation Division assessed the admissibility of the application for revocation of its own motion and expressly stated that the requirements of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 37 of Regulation No 2868/95 had been fulfilled. The appellant submits that the principle of continuity of functions, as recognised in the case-law of the General Court, requires a full review of the decision of the Cancellation Division by the Board of Appeal, including assessments as to the admissibility of applications for revocation. In support of its view, the appellant refers to, inter alia, the case-law of the General Court as expressed in the judgments of 23 September 2003, KLEENCARE, T-308/01, paragraphs 24 to 26, 28, 29 and 32, (3) and of 1 February 2005, HOOLIGAN, T-57/03, paragraphs 22 and 25. (4)

Lastly, the applicant and appellant indubitably challenged the admissibility of the application for revocation, albeit in different terms, both in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and in those before the Board of Appeal.

On the basis of all three aforementioned grounds the question as to the admissibility of the application for revocation has always been part of the factual and legal context of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The applicant claims that the assessment of the admissibility of the application for revocation by the General Court does not go beyond such an analysis. The applicant maintains that, to that extent, a complaint of inadmissibility of an application for revocation differs from the submission of new grounds for revocation or invalidity and also differs from a belated request for evidence of genuine use of an earlier mark.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.

(3)  ECLI:EU:T:2003:241.

(4)  ECLI:EU:T:2005:29.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

(Case C-344/17)

(2017/C 330/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IJDF Italy Srl

Defendants: Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

Question referred

Must Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national law that, when cases are related, in particular when there is a guarantee claim related to the original proceedings, provides that the cases are to be determined together before the same court, even though as a result of that provision jurisdiction in respect of the guarantee claim lies with a court other than that within whose jurisdiction the consumer resides or other than that of his address for service?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana

(Case C-350/17)

(2017/C 330/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l

Respondent: Regione Toscana

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?

| 2. | May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?

| 3. | In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?

| 4. | If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.

(Case C-351/17)

(2017/C 330/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autolinee Toscane SpA

Respondent: Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?

| 2. | May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?

| 3. | In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?

| 4. | If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-375/17)

(2017/C 330/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

| 1. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules, such as those laid down by Article 1(653) of the 2015 Stability Law and the relevant implementing legislation, that provide for an exclusive mono-concessionaire model for management of the Lotto, but not for other games, prediction games and betting? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules, such as those laid down by Article 1(653) of the 2015 Stability Law and the relevant implementing legislation, that provide for an exclusive mono-concessionaire model for management of the Lotto, but not for other games, prediction games and betting?

| 2. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding a concession notice that stipulates a much higher basic contract value unjustified in relation to the requirements concerning economic and financial standing and technical and organisational ability, as set out in paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 11. 12.4 and 15.3 of the concession documents for the award of the Lotto concession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding a concession notice that stipulates a much higher basic contract value unjustified in relation to the requirements concerning economic and financial standing and technical and organisational ability, as set out in paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 11. 12.4 and 15.3 of the concession documents for the award of the Lotto concession?

| 3. | Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules that impose a de facto choice between being awarded a new concession and continuing to exercise the freedom to provide various betting services on a cross-border basis, a choice of the kind that results from Article 30 of the model contract, the effect being that the decision to participate in the tender for the award of the new concession would involve abandoning the cross-border activity, even though the legality of that activity has on several occasions been recognised by the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules that impose a de facto choice between being awarded a new concession and continuing to exercise the freedom to provide various betting services on a cross-border basis, a choice of the kind that results from Article 30 of the model contract, the effect being that the decision to participate in the tender for the award of the new concession would involve abandoning the cross-border activity, even though the legality of that activity has on several occasions been recognised by the Court of Justice?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany lodged on 10 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Touring Tours und Travel GmbH

(Case C-412/17)

(2017/C 330/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Federal Republic of Germany

Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Touring Tours und Travel GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?
  In particular:






  (a) | Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

In particular:

(a)

Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code?

| (b) | Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks?

| (c) | If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks?

| (d) | Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State?

| 2. | Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

(Case C-444/17)

(2017/C 330/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales

Respondents: Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (1) of 9 March 2016, which provides that, when border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II (relating to external borders) are to apply mutatis mutandis, to be interpreted to the effect that border controls reintroduced at an internal border of a Member State may be equated with border controls at an external border, when that border is crossed by a third-country national who has no right of entry? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (1) of 9 March 2016, which provides that, when border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II (relating to external borders) are to apply mutatis mutandis, to be interpreted to the effect that border controls reintroduced at an internal border of a Member State may be equated with border controls at an external border, when that border is crossed by a third-country national who has no right of entry?

| 2. | In the same circumstances of reintroduction of controls at internal borders, do that regulation and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally (2) staying third-country nationals permit the application to the situation of a third-country national crossing a border at which controls have been reintroduced of the power, conferred on them by Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, to continue to apply simplified national return procedures at their external borders? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the same circumstances of reintroduction of controls at internal borders, do that regulation and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally (2) staying third-country nationals permit the application to the situation of a third-country national crossing a border at which controls have been reintroduced of the power, conferred on them by Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, to continue to apply simplified national return procedures at their external borders?

| 3. | If the answer to the previous question should be affirmative, do the provisions of Article 2(2)(a) and of Article 4(4) of the directive preclude national legislation such as Article L.621-2 Ceseda, which penalises with a term of imprisonment the illegal entry into national territory of a third-country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the previous question should be affirmative, do the provisions of Article 2(2)(a) and of Article 4(4) of the directive preclude national legislation such as Article L.621-2 Ceseda, which penalises with a term of imprisonment the illegal entry into national territory of a third-country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 26 July 2017 — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

(Case C-449/17)

(2017/C 330/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concept of school or university education in Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax cover driving school tuition to acquire category B and category C1 driving licences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concept of school or university education in Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax cover driving school tuition to acquire category B and category C1 driving licences?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
  Can the applicant be recognised as an organisation with similar objects for the purposes of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax on the basis of the provisions on the driving instructor examination and the issue of a driving instruction and driving school licence in the Law on driving instructors (Gesetz über das Fahrlehrerwesen) of 25 August 1969 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 1969, 1336), last amended by the Law of 28 November 2016 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 2722, Fahrlehrergesetz, Law on driving instructors), and of the public interest in the training of learner drivers to be safe, responsible and environmentally aware road users? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Can the applicant be recognised as an organisation with similar objects for the purposes of Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax on the basis of the provisions on the driving instructor examination and the issue of a driving instruction and driving school licence in the Law on driving instructors (Gesetz über das Fahrlehrerwesen) of 25 August 1969 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 1969, 1336), last amended by the Law of 28 November 2016 (Bundesgesetzblatt I 2016, 2722, Fahrlehrergesetz, Law on driving instructors), and of the public interest in the training of learner drivers to be safe, responsible and environmentally aware road users?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:
  Does the term ‘tuition given privately by teachers’ contained in Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:

Does the term ‘tuition given privately by teachers’ contained in Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax require that the taxable person be an individual trader?

| 4. | If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are in the negative:
  Is an instructor always providing tuition privately within the meaning of Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if he acts on his own account and at his own risk, or must further requirements be met to qualify as a private teacher? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are in the negative:

Is an instructor always providing tuition privately within the meaning of Article 132(1)(j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if he acts on his own account and at his own risk, or must further requirements be met to qualify as a private teacher?

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Walltopia AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-451/17)

(2017/C 330/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walltopia AD

Defendants: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems in conjunction with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that a person who pursues an activity as an employed person is not subject to the legislation of the Member State where the company that recruited him is established if he was not an insured person in this Member State in accordance with the national legislation referred to in Article 1(l) of the basic Regulation immediately before the start of his employment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems in conjunction with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that a person who pursues an activity as an employed person is not subject to the legislation of the Member State where the company that recruited him is established if he was not an insured person in this Member State in accordance with the national legislation referred to in Article 1(l) of the basic Regulation immediately before the start of his employment?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is it permissible for a national court, when interpreting the content and meaning of the term ‘is subject to’ in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 and in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, to take the citizenship of a Member State of the person into account when the employed person is in any case subject to the national legislation only on account of their citizenship? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is it permissible for a national court, when interpreting the content and meaning of the term ‘is subject to’ in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 and in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, to take the citizenship of a Member State of the person into account when the employed person is in any case subject to the national legislation only on account of their citizenship?

| 3. | May — if the answer to the second question is also in the negative — the national court, when applying the term referred to in the second question, take into account the habitual and permanent residence of the person employed, within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation No 883/2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May — if the answer to the second question is also in the negative — the national court, when applying the term referred to in the second question, take into account the habitual and permanent residence of the person employed, within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation No 883/2004?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is also in the negative, what elements must be taken into account by the national court in determining the meaning of ‘is subject to ... the legislation’ in Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Regulation [No 987/2009] in order to apply these provisions in accordance with their precise sense? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is also in the negative, what elements must be taken into account by the national court in determining the meaning of ‘is subject to ... the legislation’ in Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Regulation [No 987/2009] in order to apply these provisions in accordance with their precise sense?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen

(Case C-465/17)

(2017/C 330/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S

Defendant: Stadt Solingen

Other parties to the proceedings: Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Regionalverband Bergisch Land e.V., Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V., Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Solingen e.V.

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the care and treatment of emergency patients in an ambulance by a medical technician/paramedic and the care and treatment of patients in a patient transport ambulance by a paramedic/medical assistant constitute ‘civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) which come under CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) codes 75252000-7 (Rescue services) and 85143000-3 (Ambulance services)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the care and treatment of emergency patients in an ambulance by a medical technician/paramedic and the care and treatment of patients in a patient transport ambulance by a paramedic/medical assistant constitute ‘civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) which come under CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) codes 75252000-7 (Rescue services) and 85143000-3 (Ambulance services)?

| 2. | Can Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU be understood as meaning that ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ include, in particular, aid organisations that are recognised under national law as civil defence and civil protection organisations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU be understood as meaning that ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ include, in particular, aid organisations that are recognised under national law as civil defence and civil protection organisations?

| 3. | Are ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU those whose mission is fulfilled in the achievement of tasks in the public good, which do not operate with a view to making a profit and which reinvest any profits in order to realise the mission of the organisation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU those whose mission is fulfilled in the achievement of tasks in the public good, which do not operate with a view to making a profit and which reinvest any profits in order to realise the mission of the organisation?

| 4. | Is the transport of a patient in an ambulance while care is provided by a paramedic/medical assistant (so-called qualified patient transport) a ‘patient transport ambulance service’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, which is not covered by the exception and to which Directive 2014/24/EU applies? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the transport of a patient in an ambulance while care is provided by a paramedic/medical assistant (so-called qualified patient transport) a ‘patient transport ambulance service’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, which is not covered by the exception and to which Directive 2014/24/EU applies?

---

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

---

General Court

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/11

---

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — ‘Pro NGO!’ v Commission

(Case T-454/17)

(2017/C 330/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:‘Pro NGO!’ (Non-Governmental-Organisations/Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen) e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Scheid, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision ARES (2017) 2484833 of 16 May 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision ARES (2017) 2484833 of 16 May 2017;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 incomplete assessment of the facts relevant for the determination of the case






  — | The applicant complains that the defendant failed to take into account either the fact that the external auditor, Ernst & Young, belatedly corrected its original statement or the fact that the Project Coordinator declared that she had submitted the documents herself. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging incomplete assessment of the facts relevant for the determination of the case

—

The applicant complains that the defendant failed to take into account either the fact that the external auditor, Ernst & Young, belatedly corrected its original statement or the fact that the Project Coordinator declared that she had submitted the documents herself.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the facts of the case contradicts other reports






  — | Further, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in its assessment of whether the applicant had complied with its contractual obligations, which contradicts the statements contained in the Final Audit Report and the OLAF Report. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the facts of the case contradicts other reports

—

Further, the applicant claims that the defendant erred in its assessment of whether the applicant had complied with its contractual obligations, which contradicts the statements contained in the Final Audit Report and the OLAF Report.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence






  — | Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence

—

Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted.

| — | The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project.

| — | In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/11

---

Action brought on 25 July 2017 — Raise Conseil v EUIPO — Raizers (RAISE)

(Case T-463/17)

(2017/C 330/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Raise Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Raizers (Paris)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘RAISE’ — European Union trade mark No 11 508 967

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1606/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it declared invalid EU trade mark RAISE No 11 508 967 for lack of distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to the following services in Class 36: ‘Financial affairs; financial information; financial management; financing services; financial analysis; mutual funds and capital investments; financial consultancy; financial sponsorship; financing (loan) business; financial evaluation (insurance, banking, real estate); setting up and investment of funds; factoring; issue of tokens of value; stock exchange quotations; securities brokerage; monetary affairs; exchanging money; fiscal valuations and assessments; real estate affairs; insurance; provident fund services; direct banking; issuing of travellers’ cheques or credit cards; real estate appraisal; real estate management’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it declared invalid EU trade mark RAISE No 11 508 967 for lack of distinctiveness within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR in relation to the following services in Class 36: ‘Financial affairs; financial information; financial management; financing services; financial analysis; mutual funds and capital investments; financial consultancy; financial sponsorship; financing (loan) business; financial evaluation (insurance, banking, real estate); setting up and investment of funds; factoring; issue of tokens of value; stock exchange quotations; securities brokerage; monetary affairs; exchanging money; fiscal valuations and assessments; real estate affairs; insurance; provident fund services; direct banking; issuing of travellers’ cheques or credit cards; real estate appraisal; real estate management’;

| — | order the company Raizers, applicant in the action for a declaration of invalidity, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the company Raise Conseil, including representation expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company Raizers, applicant in the action for a declaration of invalidity, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the company Raise Conseil, including representation expenses.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/12

---

Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)

(Case T-472/17)

(2017/C 330/15)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Camele’on’ — Application for registration No 13 317 714

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 570/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

| — | order in-edit S.à.r.l. to bear its own costs in case of an intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

order in-edit S.à.r.l. to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

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.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/13

---

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB

(Case T-482/17)

(2017/C 330/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Comercial Vascongada Recalde, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Rivas Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by Comercial Vascongada Recalde, S.A., taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 133 385,04, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by Comercial Vascongada Recalde, S.A., taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 133 385,04, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and (4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) insofar as the Banco Popular was not ‘failing’ as described in those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and (4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) insofar as the Banco Popular was not ‘failing’ as described in those provisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10(10), 10(11) and 21(2)(b) of Regulation No 806/2014, insofar as there were indeed alternatives to the resolution of Banco Popular. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10(10), 10(11) and 21(2)(b) of Regulation No 806/2014, insofar as there were indeed alternatives to the resolution of Banco Popular.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/13

---

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — García Suárez and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-483/17)

(2017/C 330/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: María de la Soledad García Suárez (Madrid, Spain), María del Carmen Chueca García (Madrid), Sol María Chueca García (Madrid), Alejandro María Chueca García (Madrid), José María Chueca García (Madrid) and Ignacio María Chueca García (Madrid) (represented by: A. Rivas Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by the applicants, taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 9 212,34, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by the applicants, taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 9 212,34, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-482/17 Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/14

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB

(Case T-484/17)

(2017/C 330/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fidesban, SA (Madrid, Spain) and 69 other applicants (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those alleged in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad General de la Abogacía and Others v Single Resolution Board.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/14

---

Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

(Case T-491/17)

(2017/C 330/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Istituzione Pubblica di Assistenza e Beneficienza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul, in its entirety or in individual parts, the Commission decision adopted on 27 March 2017 (SA.38825) State aid — Italy, presumed State aid for private providers of social and healthcare services.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, the contested measures affect trade between Member States inasmuch as they favour multinational groups and Italian companies with foreign capital contribution which invest in Italy for profit-making purposes and, by contrast, penalise smaller public providers which operate for non-profit purposes by distorting the structure of their labour costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, the contested measures affect trade between Member States inasmuch as they favour multinational groups and Italian companies with foreign capital contribution which invest in Italy for profit-making purposes and, by contrast, penalise smaller public providers which operate for non-profit purposes by distorting the structure of their labour costs.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/15

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB

(Case T-497/17)

(2017/C 330/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Manuel Alfonso Sánchez del Valle (Madrid, Spain) and Calatrava Real State 2015 (Madrid) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board at its executive session of 7 June 2017 to adopt the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board at its executive session of 7 June 2017 to adopt the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Order the defendant[s] and the interveners to pay the costs in respect of all or part of the claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant[s] and the interveners to pay the costs in respect of all or part of the claims.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on 11 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lacking or insufficient reasoning for the contested decision, which entails infringement of Articles 41(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lacking or insufficient reasoning for the contested decision, which entails infringement of Articles 41(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 by failing to carry out a reasonable, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of Banco Popular by an independent person before the resolution decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 by failing to carry out a reasonable, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of Banco Popular by an independent person before the resolution decision.

| 3. | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, insofar as the contested decisions uphold the resolution of Banco Popular while, as at 6 June 2017, that bank had no solvency problems and its liquidity problems were temporary. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, insofar as the contested decisions uphold the resolution of Banco Popular while, as at 6 June 2017, that bank had no solvency problems and its liquidity problems were temporary.

| 4. | Infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the contested decisions consent to the resolution of Banco Popular, while there were reasonable prospects that other means from the private sector could prevent it become unviable within a reasonable time. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the contested decisions consent to the resolution of Banco Popular, while there were reasonable prospects that other means from the private sector could prevent it become unviable within a reasonable time.

| 5. | Infringement of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since no attempt was made to minimise the cost of the resolution and avoid the destruction of wealth, which was unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the resolution. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since no attempt was made to minimise the cost of the resolution and avoid the destruction of wealth, which was unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the resolution.

| 6. | Infringement of Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, by failing to weight the contested decisions and adopt resolution tools other than the sale of the business, provided for in paragraph 2 thereof, in accordance with the factors set out in paragraph 3. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Infringement of Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, by failing to weight the contested decisions and adopt resolution tools other than the sale of the business, provided for in paragraph 2 thereof, in accordance with the factors set out in paragraph 3.

| 7. | Infringement of Article 15(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the shareholders ought to have received more than they would receive in the event of insolvency. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Infringement of Article 15(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the shareholders ought to have received more than they would receive in the event of insolvency.

| 8. | Infringement of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Infringement of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.

| 9. | Infringement of the right to property and, in consequence, of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Infringement of the right to property and, in consequence, of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 10. | Infringement of the right to an effective remedy, given the inability of the shareholders to protect their position. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Infringement of the right to an effective remedy, given the inability of the shareholders to protect their position.

| 11. | Infringement of the right of the shareholders and other holders of securities included in the scope of the write-down and conversion to be heard before adoption of the individual measure, which adversely affects them, of write-down of their assets. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Infringement of the right of the shareholders and other holders of securities included in the scope of the write-down and conversion to be heard before adoption of the individual measure, which adversely affects them, of write-down of their assets.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/16

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Álvares de Linera Granda v Commission and SRB

(Case T-498/17)

(2017/C 330/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Álvares de Linera Granda (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and SRB

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

| — | Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

| — | By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/17

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB

(Case T-499/17)

(2017/C 330/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

| — | Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

| — | By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.

---

| 2.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/18

---

Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

(Case T-533/17)

(2017/C 330/23)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of ‘nuuna’) — Application for registration No 10 772 606

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1448/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 1(1) Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of autonomy; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1(1) Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of autonomy;

| — | Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, legality and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, legality and sound administration.

---