# Official Journal C 16/18 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 16 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5918 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 16

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5918 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 016/01 | Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 016/01

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

Official Journal of the European Union

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2016/C 016/02 | Case C-439/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo (Appeal — Public service contracts — Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP — Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo — Action brought against the decision awarding the contract — Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU — Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU — Meaning of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union — Measures attributable to the European Commission — Excusable error) | 2 |
| 2016/C 016/03 | Case C-572/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Exclusive reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Article 5(2)(a) and (b) — Reprography exception — Private copying exception — Requirement for consistent application of exceptions — Concept of fair compensation — Recovery of remuneration as fair compensation for multifunction printers — Proportional remunerative payment — Lump-sum remunerative payment — Accumulation of lump-sum and proportional remunerative payments — Method of calculation — Recipients of fair compensation — Authors and publishers — Sheet music) | 3 |
| 2016/C 016/04 | Case C-632/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Income tax — Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source — Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances — Justification — Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions) | 4 |
| 2016/C 016/05 | Case C-103/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 7(1), 10(1), 121 and 132(2) — Acts implementing that regulation — Validity, in the light the TFEU Treaty, the 2003 Act of Accession and the principles of non-discrimination, legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration — Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers — Reduction of the amounts — Level of direct payments applicable in the Member States of the European Community as constituted on 30 April 2004 and in the Member States that joined it on 1 May 2004 — No publication and no statement of reasons) | 5 |
| 2016/C 016/06 | Case C-115/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 26 — Public procurement — Postal services — Legislation of a regional entity of a Member State requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services covered by the public contract) | 6 |
| 2016/C 016/07 | Case C-121/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility — Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State — Approval of that State — Extension of a rail freight corridor — Legal basis — Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU) | 7 |
| 2016/C 016/08 | Case C-198/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU — Directive 94/62/EC — Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 — Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State — Excise duty on certain beverage packaging — Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system — Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU — Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Justification — Protection of health) | 8 |
| 2016/C 016/09 | Case C-219/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time — Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle) | 9 |
| 2016/C 016/10 | Case C-223/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Concept of an extrajudicial document — Private documents — Cross-border implications — Functioning of the internal market) | 9 |
| 2016/C 016/11 | Case C-241/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National of a Member State of the European Union — Frontier workers — Income tax — Allocation of fiscal sovereignty — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Nationality) | 10 |
| 2016/C 016/12 | Case C-325/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition of communication and public — Distribution of television programmes — Process known as direct injection) | 11 |
| 2016/C 016/13 | Case C-422/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph — Concept of workers normally employed at the establishment concerned — Article 1(1), second subparagraph — Concepts of redundancy and terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant) | 12 |
| 2016/C 016/14 | Case C-505/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — State aid — Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU — Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid — Res judicata — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Principle of effectiveness) | 12 |
| 2016/C 016/15 | Case C-455/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy) | 13 |
| 2016/C 016/16 | Case C-478/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen | 14 |
| 2016/C 016/17 | Case C-502/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | 14 |
| 2016/C 016/18 | Case C-508/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin | 15 |
| 2016/C 016/19 | Case C-509/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin | 16 |
| 2016/C 016/20 | Case C-528/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others | 16 |
| 2016/C 016/21 | Case C-534/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 12 October 2015 — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare | 17 |
| 2016/C 016/22 | Case C-542/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo | 18 |
| 2016/C 016/23 | Case C-543/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie | 18 |
| 2016/C 016/24 | Case C-545/15: Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland | 19 |
| 2016/C 016/25 | Case C-555/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública | 20 |
| 2016/C 016/26 | Case C-558/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel | 20 |
| 2016/C 016/27 | Case C-563/15: Action brought on 4 November 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain | 21 |
| 2016/C 016/28 | Case C-577/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA) | 22 |
| 2016/C 016/29 | Case C-588/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission | 23 |
| 2016/C 016/30 | Case C-596/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission | 24 |
| 2016/C 016/31 | Case C-597/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission | 25 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 016/32 | Case T-1/08 INTP: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment) | 27 |
| 2016/C 016/33 | Case T-278/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD — Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 27 |
| 2016/C 016/34 | Case T-670/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Decision not to renew the contract — Duty of care — Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file) | 28 |
| 2016/C 016/35 | Case T-107/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — National reserve — Allocation criteria — Risk to the Fund — Cross compliance) | 29 |
| 2016/C 016/36 | Case T-126/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Financial correction applied in respect of the non-reporting of interest — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to account for interest — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Principle of equivalence — Obligation of due diligence) | 30 |
| 2016/C 016/37 | Case T-223/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VENT ROLL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 31 |
| 2016/C 016/38 | Case T-248/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi — Earlier national word mark masafi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 31 |
| 2016/C 016/39 | Case T-249/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark masafi — Earlier national word mark masafi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 32 |
| 2016/C 016/40 | Case T-320/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2016/C 016/41 | Case T-520/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark RACE GTP — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2016/C 016/42 | Case T-526/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord — Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN — Relative ground of refusal — Proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 34 |
| 2016/C 016/43 | Case T-539/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment) | 35 |
| 2016/C 016/44 | Case T-629/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a car — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2016/C 016/45 | Case T-763/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SOPRAPUR — Prior Community word mark Sopro — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 37 |
| 2016/C 016/46 | Case T-190/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me) (Community trademark — Application for Community figurative mark meet me — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 37 |
| 2016/C 016/47 | Case T-187/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania — Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient) | 38 |
| 2016/C 016/48 | Case T-188/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary) | 39 |
| 2016/C 016/49 | Case T-532/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice | 39 |
| 2016/C 016/50 | Case T-582/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission | 40 |
| 2016/C 016/51 | Case T-617/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD) | 43 |
| 2016/C 016/52 | Case T-621/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch) | 44 |
| 2016/C 016/53 | Case T-623/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!) | 44 |
| 2016/C 016/54 | Case T-624/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission | 45 |
| 2016/C 016/55 | Case T-625/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE) | 46 |
| 2016/C 016/56 | Case T-629/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER) | 47 |
| 2016/C 016/57 | Case T-634/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA) | 48 |
| 2016/C 016/58 | Case T-635/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM) | 48 |
| 2016/C 016/59 | Case T-636/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission | 49 |
| 2016/C 016/60 | Case T-638/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK) | 50 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 016/61 | Case F-33/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative — No new representative appointed — Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests — No need to adjudicate) | 52 |
| 2016/C 016/62 | Case F-130/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — ZZ v ECB | 52 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 016/02

Case C-439/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo (Appeal — Public service contracts — Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP — Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo — Action brought against the decision awarding the contract — Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU — Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU — Meaning of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union — Measures attributable to the European Commission — Excusable error)

2

2016/C 016/03

Case C-572/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Exclusive reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Article 5(2)(a) and (b) — Reprography exception — Private copying exception — Requirement for consistent application of exceptions — Concept of fair compensation — Recovery of remuneration as fair compensation for multifunction printers — Proportional remunerative payment — Lump-sum remunerative payment — Accumulation of lump-sum and proportional remunerative payments — Method of calculation — Recipients of fair compensation — Authors and publishers — Sheet music)

3

2016/C 016/04

Case C-632/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Income tax — Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source — Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances — Justification — Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions)

4

2016/C 016/05

Case C-103/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Articles 7(1), 10(1), 121 and 132(2) — Acts implementing that regulation — Validity, in the light the TFEU Treaty, the 2003 Act of Accession and the principles of non-discrimination, legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration — Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers — Reduction of the amounts — Level of direct payments applicable in the Member States of the European Community as constituted on 30 April 2004 and in the Member States that joined it on 1 May 2004 — No publication and no statement of reasons)

5

2016/C 016/06

Case C-115/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 26 — Public procurement — Postal services — Legislation of a regional entity of a Member State requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services covered by the public contract)

6

2016/C 016/07

Case C-121/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility — Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State — Approval of that State — Extension of a rail freight corridor — Legal basis — Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU)

7

2016/C 016/08

Case C-198/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU — Directive 94/62/EC — Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 — Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State — Excise duty on certain beverage packaging — Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system — Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU — Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Justification — Protection of health)

8

2016/C 016/09

Case C-219/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time — Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle)

9

2016/C 016/10

Case C-223/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Concept of an extrajudicial document — Private documents — Cross-border implications — Functioning of the internal market)

9

2016/C 016/11

Case C-241/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National of a Member State of the European Union — Frontier workers — Income tax — Allocation of fiscal sovereignty — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Nationality)

10

2016/C 016/12

Case C-325/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition of communication and public — Distribution of television programmes — Process known as direct injection)

11

2016/C 016/13

Case C-422/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph — Concept of workers normally employed at the establishment concerned — Article 1(1), second subparagraph — Concepts of redundancy and terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

12

2016/C 016/14

Case C-505/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — State aid — Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU — Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid — Res judicata — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Principle of effectiveness)

12

2016/C 016/15

Case C-455/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy)

13

2016/C 016/16

Case C-478/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

14

2016/C 016/17

Case C-502/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

14

2016/C 016/18

Case C-508/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin

15

2016/C 016/19

Case C-509/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin

16

2016/C 016/20

Case C-528/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others

16

2016/C 016/21

Case C-534/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 12 October 2015 — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare

17

2016/C 016/22

Case C-542/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo

18

2016/C 016/23

Case C-543/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

18

2016/C 016/24

Case C-545/15: Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

19

2016/C 016/25

Case C-555/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

20

2016/C 016/26

Case C-558/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

20

2016/C 016/27

Case C-563/15: Action brought on 4 November 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

21

2016/C 016/28

Case C-577/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA)

22

2016/C 016/29

Case C-588/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission

23

2016/C 016/30

Case C-596/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission

24

2016/C 016/31

Case C-597/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

25

General Court

2016/C 016/32

Case T-1/08 INTP: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment)

27

2016/C 016/33

Case T-278/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD — Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

27

2016/C 016/34

Case T-670/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Decision not to renew the contract — Duty of care — Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file)

28

2016/C 016/35

Case T-107/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — National reserve — Allocation criteria — Risk to the Fund — Cross compliance)

29

2016/C 016/36

Case T-126/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Netherlands v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Financial correction applied in respect of the non-reporting of interest — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to account for interest — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Principle of equivalence — Obligation of due diligence)

30

2016/C 016/37

Case T-223/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VENT ROLL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

31

2016/C 016/38

Case T-248/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi — Earlier national word mark masafi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

31

2016/C 016/39

Case T-249/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark masafi — Earlier national word mark masafi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

32

2016/C 016/40

Case T-320/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2016/C 016/41

Case T-520/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark RACE GTP — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2016/C 016/42

Case T-526/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord — Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN — Relative ground of refusal — Proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

34

2016/C 016/43

Case T-539/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

35

2016/C 016/44

Case T-629/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a car — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

36

2016/C 016/45

Case T-763/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark SOPRAPUR — Prior Community word mark Sopro — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

37

2016/C 016/46

Case T-190/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me) (Community trademark — Application for Community figurative mark meet me — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

37

2016/C 016/47

Case T-187/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania — Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient)

38

2016/C 016/48

Case T-188/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary)

39

2016/C 016/49

Case T-532/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice

39

2016/C 016/50

Case T-582/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission

40

2016/C 016/51

Case T-617/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)

43

2016/C 016/52

Case T-621/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)

44

2016/C 016/53

Case T-623/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)

44

2016/C 016/54

Case T-624/15: Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission

45

2016/C 016/55

Case T-625/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

46

2016/C 016/56

Case T-629/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)

47

2016/C 016/57

Case T-634/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA)

48

2016/C 016/58

Case T-635/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)

48

2016/C 016/59

Case T-636/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission

49

2016/C 016/60

Case T-638/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)

50

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 016/61

Case F-33/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative — No new representative appointed — Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

52

2016/C 016/62

Case F-130/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — ZZ v ECB

52

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/1

---

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

(2016/C 016/01)

Last publication

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016..

Past publications

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

OJ C 398, 30.11.2015

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-439/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Public service contracts - Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP - Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo - Action brought against the decision awarding the contract - Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU - Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU - Meaning of ‘bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’ - Measures attributable to the European Commission - Excusable error))

(2016/C 016/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Elitaliana SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Elitaliana SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL

(Case C-572/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(a) and (b) - Reprography exception - Private copying exception - Requirement for consistent application of exceptions - Concept of ‘fair compensation’ - Recovery of remuneration as fair compensation for multifunction printers - Proportional remunerative payment - Lump-sum remunerative payment - Accumulation of lump-sum and proportional remunerative payments - Method of calculation - Recipients of fair compensation - Authors and publishers - Sheet music))

(2016/C 016/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL

Defendant: Reprobel SCRL

Intervening party: Epson Europe BV

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the phrase ‘fair compensation’ contained in those provisions, it is necessary to draw a distinction according to whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the phrase ‘fair compensation’ contained in those provisions, it is necessary to draw a distinction according to whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.

| 2. | Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the Member State in question to allocate a part of the fair compensation payable to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, those publishers being under no obligation to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the Member State in question to allocate a part of the fair compensation payable to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, those publishers being under no obligation to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived.

| 3. | Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers the copying of sheet music, and preclude such legislation which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers counterfeit reproductions made from unlawful sources. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers the copying of sheet music, and preclude such legislation which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers counterfeit reproductions made from unlawful sources.

| 4. | Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system that combines, in order to finance the fair compensation payable to rightholders, two forms of remuneration, namely, first, lump-sum remuneration paid prior to the reproduction operation by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, and, second, proportional remuneration paid after that reproduction operation and determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which is payable by the natural or legal persons who make those copies, in so far as:






  — | the lump-sum remuneration paid in advance is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the device concerned is capable of producing copies; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system that combines, in order to finance the fair compensation payable to rightholders, two forms of remuneration, namely, first, lump-sum remuneration paid prior to the reproduction operation by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, and, second, proportional remuneration paid after that reproduction operation and determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which is payable by the natural or legal persons who make those copies, in so far as:

—

the lump-sum remuneration paid in advance is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the device concerned is capable of producing copies;

| — | the proportional remuneration recovered after the fact varies according to whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of that remuneration; |
| --- | --- |

—

the proportional remuneration recovered after the fact varies according to whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of that remuneration;

| — | the combined system, taken as a whole, does not include mechanisms, in particular for reimbursement, which allow the complementary application of the criterion of actual harm suffered and the criterion of harm established as a lump sum in respect of different categories of users. |
| --- | --- |

—

the combined system, taken as a whole, does not include mechanisms, in particular for reimbursement, which allow the complementary application of the criterion of actual harm suffered and the criterion of harm established as a lump sum in respect of different categories of users.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen

(Case C-632/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Revenue of non-resident taxpayers subject to taxation at source - Exclusion of any tax deduction related to the taxpayer’s personal circumstances - Justification - Possibility for non-resident taxpayers to opt for the regime applicable to resident taxpayers and to benefit from the relevant tax deductions))

(2016/C 016/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

Operative part of the judgment

In matters of taxation of income, the refusal to grant non-resident taxpayers, who obtain the majority of their income from the source State and who have opted for the taxation at source regime, the same personal deductions as those granted to resident taxpayers under the ordinary taxation regime does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 21 TFEU where the non-resident taxpayers are not subject to an overall tax burden greater than that placed on resident taxpayers and on persons in a similar situation whose circumstances are comparable to those of non-resident taxpayers.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė

(Case C-103/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Articles 7(1), 10(1), 121 and 132(2) - Acts implementing that regulation - Validity, in the light the TFEU Treaty, the 2003 Act of Accession and the principles of non-discrimination, legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration - Modulation of direct payments granted to farmers - Reduction of the amounts - Level of direct payments applicable in the Member States of the European Community as constituted on 30 April 2004 and in the Member States that joined it on 1 May 2004 - No publication and no statement of reasons))

(2016/C 016/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB

Defendants: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė

Intervening parties: Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 7(1), 10(1) and 121 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘level of direct payments applicable in the Member States other than new Member States’ must be interpreted as meaning that that level was, in 2012, equal to 90 % of the level of all direct payments and that the concept of ‘level of direct payments in the new Member States’ must be interpreted as meaning that that level was, in 2012, equal to that in the Member States of the European Community as constituted on 30 April 2004. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 7(1), 10(1) and 121 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘level of direct payments applicable in the Member States other than new Member States’ must be interpreted as meaning that that level was, in 2012, equal to 90 % of the level of all direct payments and that the concept of ‘level of direct payments in the new Member States’ must be interpreted as meaning that that level was, in 2012, equal to that in the Member States of the European Community as constituted on 30 April 2004.

| 2. | Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 authorising the granting of complementary national direct payments in Lithuania in respect of the year 2012, is invalid since the consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the end of Article 10(1) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 authorising the granting of complementary national direct payments in Lithuania in respect of the year 2012, is invalid since the consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the end of Article 10(1) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009.

| 3. | The consideration of those questions has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, as worded following the corrigendum published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 February 2010. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The consideration of those questions has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, as worded following the corrigendum published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 February 2010.

| 4. | The meaning of the word ‘dydis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 1c(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, which was inserted into the regulation by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded is the same as that of the word ‘lygis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The meaning of the word ‘dydis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 1c(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, which was inserted into the regulation by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded is the same as that of the word ‘lygis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz

(Case C-115/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 26 - Public procurement - Postal services - Legislation of a regional entity of a Member State requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services covered by the public contract))

(2016/C 016/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Stadt Landau in der Pfalz

Intervening parties: PostCon Deutschland GmbH, Deutsche Post AG

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 26 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 26 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation.

| 2. | Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract of tenderers and their subcontractors who refuse to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract of tenderers and their subcontractors who refuse to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-121/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility - Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State - Approval of that State - Extension of a rail freight corridor - Legal basis - Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU))

(2016/C 016/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and 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 135, 5.5.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus

(Case C-198/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU - Directive 94/62/EC - Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 - Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State - Excise duty on certain beverage packaging - Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system - Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU - Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages - Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages - Justification - Protection of health))

(2016/C 016/08)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hovioikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valev Visnapuu

Defendants: Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 110 TFEU and Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an excise duty on certain beverage packaging, but lays down an exemption for packaging integrated into a functioning return system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 110 TFEU and Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an excise duty on certain beverage packaging, but lays down an exemption for packaging integrated into a functioning return system.

| 2. | Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a seller established in another Member State must hold a retail sale licence in order to import alcoholic beverages with a view to their retail sale to consumers residing in the first Member State, where that seller, or someone acting on his behalf, transports those beverages, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, in the present case the protection of health and public policy, that the objective in question could not be achieved with at least an equivalent level of effectiveness by less restrictive methods and that the legislation does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States, which it is for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a seller established in another Member State must hold a retail sale licence in order to import alcoholic beverages with a view to their retail sale to consumers residing in the first Member State, where that seller, or someone acting on his behalf, transports those beverages, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, in the present case the protection of health and public policy, that the objective in question could not be achieved with at least an equivalent level of effectiveness by less restrictive methods and that the legislation does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd

(Case C-219/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time - Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle))

(2016/C 016/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Birmingham Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kathleen Greenfield

Defendant: The Care Bureau Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/CE of 7 April 1998, and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the Member States are not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, must be recalculated retroactively according to that worker’s new work pattern. A new calculation must, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/CE of 7 April 1998, and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the Member States are not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, must be recalculated retroactively according to that worker’s new work pattern. A new calculation must, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased.

| 2. | Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to be performed according to the same principles, whether what is being determined is the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken where the employment relationship is terminated, or the outstanding annual leave entitlement where the employment relationship continues. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to be performed according to the same principles, whether what is being determined is the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken where the employment relationship is terminated, or the outstanding annual leave entitlement where the employment relationship continues.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez

(Case C-223/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ - Private documents - Cross-border implications - Functioning of the internal market))

(2016/C 016/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law.

| 2. | Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that service of an extrajudicial document, pursuant to the detailed rules laid down by that regulation, can be effected even where the applicant has already effected an earlier service of that document through a means of transmission not provided for in the regulation, or through another of the means of transmission put in place by it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that service of an extrajudicial document, pursuant to the detailed rules laid down by that regulation, can be effected even where the applicant has already effected an earlier service of that document through a means of transmission not provided for in the regulation, or through another of the means of transmission put in place by it.

| 3. | Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions of that article are satisfied, it is not necessary to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, whether the service of an extrajudicial document has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions of that article are satisfied, it is not necessary to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, whether the service of an extrajudicial document has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach

(Case C-241/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Relationship between that agreement and bilateral agreements on double taxation - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - National of a Member State of the European Union - Frontier workers - Income tax - Allocation of fiscal sovereignty - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Nationality))

(2016/C 016/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roman Bukovansky

Defendant: Finanzamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

The principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment, set out in Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, and in Article 9 of Annex I to that agreement, must be interpreted as not precluding a bilateral agreement on double taxation, such as the Agreement of 11 August 1971 between the Swiss Confederation and the Federal Republic of Germany, as amended by the revising Protocol of 12 March 2002, under which the power to tax the employment income of a German taxpayer who does not have Swiss nationality, although he has transferred his residence from Germany to Switzerland, whilst retaining his place of employment in the first of those States, is vested in the State in which that income originates, namely the Federal Republic of Germany, whereas the power to tax the employment income of a Swiss national who is in an analogous situation is vested in the new State of residence, in this case the Swiss Confederation.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

(Case C-325/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition of ‘communication’ and ‘public’ - Distribution of television programmes - Process known as ‘direct injection’))

(2016/C 016/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SBS Belgium NV

Defendant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that a broadcasting organisation does not carry out an act of communication to the public, within the meaning of that provision, when it transmits its programme-carrying signals exclusively to signal distributors without those signals being accessible to the public during, and as a result of that transmission, those distributors then sending those signals to their respective subscribers so that they may watch those programmes, unless the intervention of the distributors in question is just a technical means, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-422/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph - Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned - Article 1(1), second subparagraph - Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))

(2016/C 016/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristian Pujante Rivera

Defendants: Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that workers employed under a contract concluded for a fixed term or a specific task must be regarded as forming part of the workers ‘normally’ employed, within the meaning of that provision, at the establishment concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that workers employed under a contract concluded for a fixed term or a specific task must be regarded as forming part of the workers ‘normally’ employed, within the meaning of that provision, at the establishment concerned.

| 2. | In order to establish whether there is a ‘collective redundancy’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59, thus giving rise to the application of the directive, the condition laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision that ‘there [be] at least five redundancies’ must be interpreted as relating not to terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies but only to redundancies sensu stricto. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to establish whether there is a ‘collective redundancy’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59, thus giving rise to the application of the directive, the condition laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision that ‘there [be] at least five redundancies’ must be interpreted as relating not to terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies but only to redundancies sensu stricto.

| 3. | Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an employer — unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee — makes significant changes to essential elements of his employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an employer — unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee — makes significant changes to essential elements of his employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-505/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - State aid - Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU - Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid - Res judicata - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Principle of effectiveness))

(2016/C 016/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Operative part of the judgment

EU law precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of a rule of national law enshrining the principle of res judicata from preventing a national court which has held that contracts forming the subject-matter of the dispute before it constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, implemented in breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, from drawing all the consequences of that breach because of a national judicial decision which has become definitive, which court, without examining whether those contracts constitute State aid, has held that the contracts remain in force.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q

(Case C-455/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 23(a) - Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Public policy))

(2016/C 016/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Varbergs tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: Q

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

(Case C-478/15)

(2016/C 016/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

Question referred

Must the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons of 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), in particular its preamble, Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 16, 21 thereof and Articles 7, 9 and 15 of Annex I thereto, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen with unlimited tax liability in that State is denied the deduction of a tax-free allowance for a part-time teaching activity because that activity is not carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area applies, but is carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in the territory of the Swiss Confederation?

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-502/15)

(2016/C 016/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the Commission requests the Court to declare that the United Kingdom has failed to implement correctly, in Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.

The Commission considers, in particular, that the United Kingdom has not ensured that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in Gowerton and Llanelli are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4, 10 and Annex I(A) and Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 3 agglomerations, as well as by not subjecting the urban waste water in Gibraltar to any treatment, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Finally, it is argued that the United Kingdom has not correctly complied with the obligations arising from Article 5, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, as it has failed to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 8 agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, is made subject to more stringent treatment.

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 1993.

---

(1)  OJ L 135, p. 40.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin

(Case C-508/15)

(2016/C 016/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sidika Ucar

Defendant: Land Berlin

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing application of that provision are also met in the case where the three years of legal residence of the member of the family of the Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force were preceded by a period in which the principal person entitled, after having been joined by the family member authorised to do so in accordance with that provision, was no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing application of that provision are also met in the case where the three years of legal residence of the member of the family of the Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force were preceded by a period in which the principal person entitled, after having been joined by the family member authorised to do so in accordance with that provision, was no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State?

| 2. | Is the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the extension of a residence permit is to be regarded as constituting the authorisation specified in that provision to join a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in the case where the family member concerned has lived continuously, since being authorised to join the Turkish worker within the meaning of that provision, together with that person but the latter, following a period of temporary absence therefrom, is duly registered as belonging afresh to the labour force of the Member State only at the date on which the residence permit is extended? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the extension of a residence permit is to be regarded as constituting the authorisation specified in that provision to join a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in the case where the family member concerned has lived continuously, since being authorised to join the Turkish worker within the meaning of that provision, together with that person but the latter, following a period of temporary absence therefrom, is duly registered as belonging afresh to the labour force of the Member State only at the date on which the residence permit is extended?

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin

(Case C-509/15)

(2016/C 016/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Recep Kilic

Defendant: Land Berlin

Question referred

Can the extension of the residence permit of a family member — who was permitted to join the principal person entitled at a time when the latter was not duly registered as belonging to the labour force — at a date on which the principal person entitled, with whom the family member is lawfully resident, has become an employed person be regarded as constituting an ‘authorisation to join’ for the purposes of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980?

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others

(Case C-528/15)

(2016/C 016/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Policie České republiky, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Other parties: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

Question referred

Does the sole fact that a law has not defined objective criteria for assessment of a significant risk that a foreign national may abscond (Article 2(n) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1)) render detention under Article 28(2) of that regulation inapplicable?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 12 October 2015 — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare

(Case C-534/15)

(2016/C 016/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș

Defendant: BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company for the purposes of its business, where those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company for the purposes of its business, where those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor?

| 2. | Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor?

---

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

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo

(Case C-542/15)

(2016/C 016/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party to the main proceedings

Angela Manzo

Questions referred

| 1. | Must [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU], as well as the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for criteria other than the requirement of two bank references from two separate banks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU], as well as the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for criteria other than the requirement of two bank references from two separate banks?

| 2. | Must Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences [that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition] relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for alternative documentation and options, as laid down under [EU] legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences [that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition] relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for alternative documentation and options, as laid down under [EU] legislation?

| 3. | Do [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU] preclude national legislation which de facto prevents any cross-border activity in the field of betting and gambling, irrespective of the form which that activity takes, in particular (in line with the findings in the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2013 in [Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12 Biasci and Others, EU:C:2013:550] in cases in which there are physical checks, for purposes of public security, of the undertaking’s intermediaries present on national territory? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU] preclude national legislation which de facto prevents any cross-border activity in the field of betting and gambling, irrespective of the form which that activity takes, in particular (in line with the findings in the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2013 in [Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12 Biasci and Others, EU:C:2013:550] in cases in which there are physical checks, for purposes of public security, of the undertaking’s intermediaries present on national territory?

---

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

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-543/15)

(2016/C 016/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Question referred

Must Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a capacity mechanism in the electricity sector such as that at issue in the main proceedings which is described in particular in paragraphs 1, 15 and 17 to 19 of the present decision?

In particular:

| a) | Even though the mechanism remunerates capacities only on the basis of their availability, not of their actual production, and having regard to the taking into account of the effects of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, which relaxes the causal link between the exclusion of foreign capacities from the mechanism, as laid down by the decree, and the restrictive effect on cross-border electricity trading which could arise therefrom in terms of investors’ resource allocation choices and suppliers’ procurement choices, must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as precluding such an exclusion measure? |
| --- | --- |

a)

Even though the mechanism remunerates capacities only on the basis of their availability, not of their actual production, and having regard to the taking into account of the effects of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, which relaxes the causal link between the exclusion of foreign capacities from the mechanism, as laid down by the decree, and the restrictive effect on cross-border electricity trading which could arise therefrom in terms of investors’ resource allocation choices and suppliers’ procurement choices, must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as precluding such an exclusion measure?

| b) | Having regard to developments in the European legal framework governing the internal market in electricity, is the objective of security of electricity supply for the inhabitants of a Member State capable of being covered by the concept of public security provided for in Article 36 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Having regard to developments in the European legal framework governing the internal market in electricity, is the objective of security of electricity supply for the inhabitants of a Member State capable of being covered by the concept of public security provided for in Article 36 TFEU?

| c) | Having regard, in particular, to the discretion granted to Member States with respect to defining suitable policies to ensure their security of electricity supply, what criteria may be used to ascertain whether a decentralised market-based capacity mechanism, involving, in the present state of the European electricity market, a measure excluding foreign capacities which is offset by the taking into account of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, is capable of satisfying the condition of proportionality required for Article 36 TFEU to apply? |
| --- | --- |

c)

Having regard, in particular, to the discretion granted to Member States with respect to defining suitable policies to ensure their security of electricity supply, what criteria may be used to ascertain whether a decentralised market-based capacity mechanism, involving, in the present state of the European electricity market, a measure excluding foreign capacities which is offset by the taking into account of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, is capable of satisfying the condition of proportionality required for Article 36 TFEU to apply?

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/19

---

Action brought on 16 October 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-545/15)

(2016/C 016/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller, K. Herrmann and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting and bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting and bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive;

| — | impose on the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, for its failure to meet its obligation to notify the measures implementing Directive 2012/19/EU a penalty payment at a daily rate of EUR 71 610 from the day on which judgment is delivered in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, for its failure to meet its obligation to notify the measures implementing Directive 2012/19/EU a penalty payment at a daily rate of EUR 71 610 from the day on which judgment is delivered in this case;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2012/19/EU expired on 14 February 2014.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 197, p. 38.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-555/15)

(2016/C 016/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred

| A. | For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, should non-conventional therapies, in particular osteopathy, be regarded as paramedical activities? |
| --- | --- |

A.

For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, should non-conventional therapies, in particular osteopathy, be regarded as paramedical activities?

| B. | Must a taxable person who is authorised under national law to practise a paramedical activity, namely physiotherapy, but who in the context of his professional health activity uses either indistinctly or complementarily both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy be regarded, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and, consequently, for the purposes of Article 9 of the CIVA [(Code on VAT)], as a professional who, overall, carries out a paramedical activity which is, accordingly, exempt from VAT? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Must a taxable person who is authorised under national law to practise a paramedical activity, namely physiotherapy, but who in the context of his professional health activity uses either indistinctly or complementarily both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy be regarded, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and, consequently, for the purposes of Article 9 of the CIVA [(Code on VAT)], as a professional who, overall, carries out a paramedical activity which is, accordingly, exempt from VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-558/15)

(2016/C 016/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo, Maria da Conceiçăo Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vitor José Ferreira Alves

Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Intervener: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Questions referred

| 1. | Do recital 16A and Article 4 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2000/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005), in the light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Article 4 (transposed into Portuguese law by Article 43 of Decree Law No 522/85 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree Law No 72-A/2003 of 14 April 2003), permit a writ to be served on the representative of an insurance company which does not operate in the country in which an action was brought seeking damages as a result of a road traffic accident, on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles taken out in another European Union Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do recital 16A and Article 4 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2000/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005), in the light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Article 4 (transposed into Portuguese law by Article 43 of Decree Law No 522/85 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree Law No 72-A/2003 of 14 April 2003), permit a writ to be served on the representative of an insurance company which does not operate in the country in which an action was brought seeking damages as a result of a road traffic accident, on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles taken out in another European Union Member State?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the question whether such a writ may be served depend on the specific terms of the representation agreement between the representative and the insurer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the question whether such a writ may be served depend on the specific terms of the representation agreement between the representative and the insurer?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/21

---

Action brought on 4 November 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-563/15)

(2016/C 016/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, in relation to the following landfill sites: Torremolinos (Malaga); Torrent de S’Estret (Andratx, Mallorca); Hoya de la Yegua de Arriba (Yaiza, Lanzarote); Barranco de Butihondo (Pájara, Fuerteventura); La Laguna-Tiscamanita (Tuineje, Fuerteventura); Lomo Blanco (Antigua, Fuerteventura); Montaña de Amagro (Galdar, Gran Canaria); Franja Costera de Botija (Galdar, Gran Canaria); Cueva Lapa (Galdar, Gran Canaria); La Colmena (Santiago del Teide, Tenerife); Montaña Los Giles (La Laguna, Tenerife); Las Rosas (Güimar, Tenerife); Barranco de Tejina (Guía de Isora, Tenerife); Llano de Ifara (Granadilla de Abona, Tenerife); Barranco del Carmen (Sta. Cruz de la Palma, La Palma); Barranco Jurado (Tijarafe, La Palma); Montaña Negra (Puntagorda, La Palma); Lomo Alto (Fuencaliente, La Palma); Arure/Llano Grande (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera); El Palmar — Taguluche (Hermigua, La Gomera); Paraje de Juan Barba (Alajeró, La Gomera); El Altito (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera); Punta Sardina (Agulo, La Gomera); Los Llanillos (La Frontera, El Hierro); Faro de Orchilla (La Frontera, El Hierro); Montaña del Tesoro (Valverde, El Hierro); Arbancón; Galve de Sorbe; Hiendelaencina; Tamajón; El Casar; Cardeñosa (Àvila); Miranda de Ebro (Burgos); Poza de la Sal (Burgos); Acebedo (León); Bustillo del Páramo (León); Cármenes (León); Gradefes (León); Noceda del Bierzo (León); San Millán de los Caballeros (León); Santa María del Páramo (León); Villaornate y Castro (León); Cevico de la Torre (Palencia); Palencia (Palencia); Ahigal de los Aceiteros (Salamanca); Alaraz (Salamanca); Calvarrasa de Abajo (Salamanca); Hinojosa de Duero (Salamanca); Machacón (Salamanca); Palaciosrubios (Salamanca); Peñaranda de Bracamonte (Salamanca); Salmoral (Salamanca); Tordillos (Salamanca); Basardilla (Segovia); Cabezuela (Segovia); Almaraz del Duero (Zamora), Cañizal (Zamora); Casaseca de las Chanas (Zamora); La Serratilla (Abanilla); Las Rellanas (Santomera) and El Labradorcico (Águilas), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 15 of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, in relation to the following landfill sites: Torremolinos (Malaga); Torrent de S’Estret (Andratx, Mallorca); Hoya de la Yegua de Arriba (Yaiza, Lanzarote); Barranco de Butihondo (Pájara, Fuerteventura); La Laguna-Tiscamanita (Tuineje, Fuerteventura); Lomo Blanco (Antigua, Fuerteventura); Montaña de Amagro (Galdar, Gran Canaria); Franja Costera de Botija (Galdar, Gran Canaria); Cueva Lapa (Galdar, Gran Canaria); La Colmena (Santiago del Teide, Tenerife); Montaña Los Giles (La Laguna, Tenerife); Las Rosas (Güimar, Tenerife); Barranco de Tejina (Guía de Isora, Tenerife); Llano de Ifara (Granadilla de Abona, Tenerife); Barranco del Carmen (Sta. Cruz de la Palma, La Palma); Barranco Jurado (Tijarafe, La Palma); Montaña Negra (Puntagorda, La Palma); Lomo Alto (Fuencaliente, La Palma); Arure/Llano Grande (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera); El Palmar — Taguluche (Hermigua, La Gomera); Paraje de Juan Barba (Alajeró, La Gomera); El Altito (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera); Punta Sardina (Agulo, La Gomera); Los Llanillos (La Frontera, El Hierro); Faro de Orchilla (La Frontera, El Hierro); Montaña del Tesoro (Valverde, El Hierro); Arbancón; Galve de Sorbe; Hiendelaencina; Tamajón; El Casar; Cardeñosa (Àvila); Miranda de Ebro (Burgos); Poza de la Sal (Burgos); Acebedo (León); Bustillo del Páramo (León); Cármenes (León); Gradefes (León); Noceda del Bierzo (León); San Millán de los Caballeros (León); Santa María del Páramo (León); Villaornate y Castro (León); Cevico de la Torre (Palencia); Palencia (Palencia); Ahigal de los Aceiteros (Salamanca); Alaraz (Salamanca); Calvarrasa de Abajo (Salamanca); Hinojosa de Duero (Salamanca); Machacón (Salamanca); Palaciosrubios (Salamanca); Peñaranda de Bracamonte (Salamanca); Salmoral (Salamanca); Tordillos (Salamanca); Basardilla (Segovia); Cabezuela (Segovia); Almaraz del Duero (Zamora), Cañizal (Zamora); Casaseca de las Chanas (Zamora); La Serratilla (Abanilla); Las Rellanas (Santomera) and El Labradorcico (Águilas), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 15 of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Infringement of Article 13 of the Directive:
  Article 13 of Directive 2008/98 provides that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment. The information available to the Commission confirms the continuation at the date of the supplementary reasoned opinion of 61 illegal landfill sites which are still unsealed and unregenerated. The continuation of that situation over a prolonged period of time leads necessarily to a significant deterioration in the environment. The Commission, therefore, concludes that in respect of each of those landfill sites the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 13 of the Directive:

Article 13 of Directive 2008/98 provides that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment. The information available to the Commission confirms the continuation at the date of the supplementary reasoned opinion of 61 illegal landfill sites which are still unsealed and unregenerated. The continuation of that situation over a prolonged period of time leads necessarily to a significant deterioration in the environment. The Commission, therefore, concludes that in respect of each of those landfill sites the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 15 of the Directive:
  Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or an undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive. The continuation of 61 illegal landfill sites that remain unsealed and unregenerated allows the Commission to find that the Spanish authorities have not taken all the necessary measures required by that provision, in so far as over a prolonged period those authorities did not prevent illegal dumping of waste in those landfill sites and, therefore, did not ensure that that waste was treated in accordance with those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 15 of the Directive:

Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or an undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive. The continuation of 61 illegal landfill sites that remain unsealed and unregenerated allows the Commission to find that the Spanish authorities have not taken all the necessary measures required by that provision, in so far as over a prolonged period those authorities did not prevent illegal dumping of waste in those landfill sites and, therefore, did not ensure that that waste was treated in accordance with those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA)

(Case C-577/15 P)

(2016/C 016/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SV Capital OÜ (represented by: M. Greinoman, Lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Banking Authority (EBA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T- 660/14 in part (1) declaring action against Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA inadmissible, (2) annulling Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 in the part regarding admissibility of the appeal of the appellant and (3) of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T- 660/14 in part (1) declaring action against Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA inadmissible, (2) annulling Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 in the part regarding admissibility of the appeal of the appellant and (3) of the costs;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the defendant to bear costs of the appeal and order the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear costs of the appeal and order the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal against the judgment of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T-660/14 the appellant relies on the following pleas and arguments in law:

The General Court ruled ultra petita;

The General Court infringed Article 60 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU (1) as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely, because it was first ruled on by the Board of Appeal of ESAs;

The General Court infringed Article 48 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (valid until 31 December 2014);

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of administrative process continuing until 14 July 2014;

The General Court infringed Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of unforeseeable circumstances;

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Articles 60 (1), 61 (1) of Regulation No 1093/2010/EU, as the action against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was admissible both because the decision had been addressed to the appellant and because the appellant had had direct and individual concern in the matter;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by errors of fact;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of discretion;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Article 39 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the EBA Internal Rules in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC OJ L 331, p. 12.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-588/15 P)

(2016/C 016/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment under appeal;

| — | annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or

| — | reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e); |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant raises four pleas in law.

First Plea: the General Court violated the Appellant's rights of defence in so far as it upheld the Commission's Decision to keep LPD outside the administrative proceedings as a defendant and, in particular, not to address the statement of objections to LPD. In rejecting LGE's plea, the General Court violated also the principle of proportionality in defining LGE's duty of care.

Second Plea: the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by LGE and Philips, which are undertakings different from LPD.

Third Plea: in the alternative, the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 .2 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by Philips.

Fourth Plea: the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment in so far as it ruled that the Commission was entitled to apply the methodology of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products to LGE, but not to Samsung SDI.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission

(Case C-596/15 P)

(2016/C 016/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Bionorica SE (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | conduct an oral hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

conduct an oral hearing;

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

| — | Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.

| — | Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/25

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14 Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-597/15 P)

(2016/C 016/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | conduct an oral hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

conduct an oral hearing;

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-620/14;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

| — | Procedural errors: the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural errors: the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.

| — | Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. Lastly, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, the appellant is directly and adversely affected by the Commission’s continuing failure to act. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, (1) in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. Lastly, contrary to the view taken by the General Court, the appellant is directly and adversely affected by the Commission’s continuing failure to act.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

---

General Court

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Buczek Automotive v Commission

(Case T-1/08 INTP) (1)

((Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment))

(2016/C 016/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: J. Jurczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Jasser, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for interpretation of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T-1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 20) is annulled with erga omnes effect;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Wesergold Getränke v OHIM Lidl Stiftung — (WESTERN GOLD)

(Case T-278/10 RENV) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WESTERN GOLD - Earlier national, Community and international word marks WeserGold, Wesergold and WESERGOLD - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: T. Melchert, P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx and M. Wolter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders riha WeserGold Getränke GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino

(Case T-670/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Decision not to renew the contract - Duty of care - Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the file))

(2016/C 016/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal;

| 3. | Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it;

| 4. | Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

| 5. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| 6. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-107/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - National reserve - Allocation criteria - Risk to the Fund - Cross compliance))

(2016/C 016/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by M. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81), in so far as the Hellenic Republic is concerned.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-126/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Financial correction applied in respect of the non-reporting of interest - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to account for interest - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Principle of equivalence - Obligation of due diligence))

(2016/C 016/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. K. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands a financial correction amounting to EUR 4 703 231,78 in respect of the non-reporting of interest on claims relating to the late payment of additional levies before 1 April 1993 and on export refunds wrongly paid before 1 April 1995; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands a financial correction amounting to EUR 4 703 231,78 in respect of the non-reporting of interest on claims relating to the late payment of additional levies before 1 April 1993 and on export refunds wrongly paid before 1 April 1995;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)

(Case T-223/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VENT ROLL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ewald Dörken AG (Herdecke, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Wolfram Schürmann (Neuhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Wesle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2014 (Case R2156/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wolfram Schürmann and Ewald Dörken AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ewald Dörken AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ewald Dörken AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (JUICE masafi)

(Case T-248/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark JUICE masafi - Earlier national word mark masafi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 119/2013-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Hd1 Ltd and Masafi Co. LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

(Case T-249/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark masafi - Earlier national word mark masafi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 1131/2013-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Hd1 Limited and Masafi Co. LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Masafi Co. LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines)

(Case T-320/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines - National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Sephora to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — bd breyton-design v OHIM (RACE GTP)

(Case T-520/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark RACE GTP - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bd breyton-design GmbH (Stockach, Germany) (represented by: T Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1230/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign RACE GTP as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders bd breyton-design GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders bd breyton-design GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez and Barranco Schnitzler (Matratzen Concord)

(Case T-526/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark Matratzen Concord - Earlier national word marks MATRATZEN - Relative ground of refusal - Proof of use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern, Spain) and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2014 (Case R 1523/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and, on the other hand, Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — North Drilling v Council

(Case T-539/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))

(2016/C 016/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 65), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as they concern North Drilling Co.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/222/CFSP of 16 April 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/14 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 119, p. 1), in so far as they concern North Drilling Co.;

| 2. | Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2014/222 and Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 397/2014 to be maintained in respect of North Drilling until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2014/222 and Article 1 of Implementing Regulation No 397/2014 to be maintained in respect of North Drilling until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of that appeal;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)

(Case T-629/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a car - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Delord and R. Grewal, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a car as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 4. | Orders OHIM to bear one-tenth of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders OHIM to bear one-tenth of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark SOPRAPUR - Prior Community word mark Sopro - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods and the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Scheffer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1370/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sopro Bauchemie GmbH and Holding Soprema.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Holding Sopremo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holding Sopremo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me)

(Case T-190/15) (1)

((Community trademark - Application for Community figurative mark meet me - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Intervog (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 (Case R 845/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the sign meet me as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Intervog to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/38

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania - Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient))

(2016/C 016/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici; Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA; Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl; Asstra — Associazione Trasporti and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici; Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA; Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl; Asstra — Associazione Trasporti and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-188/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary))

(2016/C 016/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA, Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA, Actv SpA, Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl, Asstra Associazione Trasporti, and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV), are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA, Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA, Actv SpA, Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl, Asstra Associazione Trasporti, and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV), are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice

(Case T-532/15 P)

(2016/C 016/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;

| — | rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings in Case F-64/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings in Case F-64/13;

| — | order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs;

| — | reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the basic rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the basic rights of defence.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the plea in law alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and of illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 (1) was rejected in manifest breach of the principle of legality, of textual interpretation and of the hierarchy of norms of the EU legal order. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the plea in law alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and of illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 (1) was rejected in manifest breach of the principle of legality, of textual interpretation and of the hierarchy of norms of the EU legal order.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, with regard in particular to the limited review by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of the content of staff reports. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, with regard in particular to the limited review by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of the content of staff reports.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST did not rule on the application for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST did not rule on the application for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure.

| 5. | Fifth ground of appeal, alleging unjustified refusal to examine the validity of the criticisms expressed by the appellant and failure to take into consideration the opinions expressed by the rating committee. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging unjustified refusal to examine the validity of the criticisms expressed by the appellant and failure to take into consideration the opinions expressed by the rating committee.

| 6. | Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST held that the appellant was obliged to apply to the Court under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking compensation for the delay in drawing up the staff report. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST held that the appellant was obliged to apply to the Court under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking compensation for the delay in drawing up the staff report.

---

(1)  Decision of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/40

---

Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission

(Case T-582/15)

(2016/C 016/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf, Germany) and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf) (represented by: M. Wirtz, S. Möller and W. Carstensen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the fact that the applicants do not form an economic entity, does not exceed 10 % of the first applicant’s turnover during the last full business year before the adoption of the decision imposing the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the fact that the applicants do not form an economic entity, does not exceed 10 % of the first applicant’s turnover during the last full business year before the adoption of the decision imposing the fine;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the divestment of the Maschinenfabrik company, does not exceed 10 % of each of the first or second applicants’ respective turnover during the last full business year; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants to an amount that, having regard to the divestment of the Maschinenfabrik company, does not exceed 10 % of each of the first or second applicants’ respective turnover during the last full business year;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the area of ‘North-West Europe’ (‘NWE’) by determining the basic amount of the fine only on the basis of the turnover from expanded polystyrene (EPS) trays; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the area of ‘North-West Europe’ (‘NWE’) by determining the basic amount of the fine only on the basis of the turnover from expanded polystyrene (EPS) trays;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by determining distinct fines for the EPS tray and polypropylene (PP) tray product ranges, on the basis of the different periods of infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by determining distinct fines for the EPS tray and polypropylene (PP) tray product ranges, on the basis of the different periods of infringement;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by reducing the share of turnover used in determining the basic amount of the fine to a factor which appropriately reflects the fact that the practices employed by the first applicant in the NWE area and in France, or in the alternative only in the NEW area, ought to have been characterised as mere exchanges of information and not as hardcore price agreements, and by waiving the hardcore additional amount for the NWE area and/or France; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by reducing the share of turnover used in determining the basic amount of the fine to a factor which appropriately reflects the fact that the practices employed by the first applicant in the NWE area and in France, or in the alternative only in the NEW area, ought to have been characterised as mere exchanges of information and not as hardcore price agreements, and by waiving the hardcore additional amount for the NWE area and/or France;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by assessing the fine for the NWE area solely on the basis of the turnover achieved in Germany; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by assessing the fine for the NWE area solely on the basis of the turnover achieved in Germany;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by waiving the hardcore additional amount, or in the alternative by reducing the hardcore additional amount, having regard to the fact that the infringements in the NWE area were appreciably less capable of distorting competition than the infringements in the other geographical areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the NWE area by waiving the hardcore additional amount, or in the alternative by reducing the hardcore additional amount, having regard to the fact that the infringements in the NWE area were appreciably less capable of distorting competition than the infringements in the other geographical areas;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the areas of NWE and France to an appropriate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants for the areas of NWE and France to an appropriate amount;

| — | 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 applicants claim that the Court should annul in part Commission Decision C (2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging).

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 7(1) and Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU
  The applicants claim that the Commission incorrectly characterised the practices employed by the first applicant in the geographical area of North-West Europe (‘NWE’) as hardcore price agreements taking the form of a single continuous infringement concerning the production and sales of polypropylene and polystyrene trays for the food industry. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 7(1) and Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU

The applicants claim that the Commission incorrectly characterised the practices employed by the first applicant in the geographical area of North-West Europe (‘NWE’) as hardcore price agreements taking the form of a single continuous infringement concerning the production and sales of polypropylene and polystyrene trays for the food industry.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation (EG) No 1/2003 in conjunction with the principle of examination by the Commission of its own motion
  By this plea in law the applicants claim that the Commission has not sufficiently satisfied the burden of proof incumbent on it and its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation (EG) No 1/2003 in conjunction with the principle of examination by the Commission of its own motion

By this plea in law the applicants claim that the Commission has not sufficiently satisfied the burden of proof incumbent on it and its duty to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights protected as fundamental rights under Article 6(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 47(2), 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  The applicants claim that the Commission infringed their rights to equality of arms and to a fair trial in that the calling and examination of witnesses on their behalf named by the applicants and the adversarial examination of a witness against them were, following several requests, refused. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights protected as fundamental rights under Article 6(1), (2) and (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 47(2), 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The applicants claim that the Commission infringed their rights to equality of arms and to a fair trial in that the calling and examination of witnesses on their behalf named by the applicants and the adversarial examination of a witness against them were, following several requests, refused.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: infringement of paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Leniency Notice (2)

  Furthermore, the applicants claim that no reduction in the fine was granted to them for the evidence that they adduced on the alleged infringements in the NWE area, despite the fact that the conditions for such a reduction were satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: infringement of paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Leniency Notice (2)

Furthermore, the applicants claim that no reduction in the fine was granted to them for the evidence that they adduced on the alleged infringements in the NWE area, despite the fact that the conditions for such a reduction were satisfied.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU
  The Commission incorrectly assumed that the applicants formed a single economic entity and therefore formed an undertaking within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with Article 101(1) TFEU

The Commission incorrectly assumed that the applicants formed a single economic entity and therefore formed an undertaking within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: infringement of the second sentence of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
  The applicants claim that, in so far as it did not take into account the second applicant’s termination of its participation in Reifenhäuser GmbH & Co. KG Maschinenfabrik, which had taken legal effect at the time of the decision imposing the fine, and included the turnover of that separated undertaking when assessing the fine, the Commission exceeded the statutory limit for fines of 10 % of the turnover of the undertaking at issue. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: infringement of the second sentence of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

The applicants claim that, in so far as it did not take into account the second applicant’s termination of its participation in Reifenhäuser GmbH & Co. KG Maschinenfabrik, which had taken legal effect at the time of the decision imposing the fine, and included the turnover of that separated undertaking when assessing the fine, the Commission exceeded the statutory limit for fines of 10 % of the turnover of the undertaking at issue.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: infringement of Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with paragraphs 19, 20 and 25 of Guidelines on the method of setting fines (3) and the principle of equal treatment
  By this plea in law the applicants claim that, for all cartels covered by the decision imposing the fine and for all relevant undertakings, a uniform share of turnover of 16 % for determining the basic amount and a uniform hardcore additional amount of 16 % were fixed, to the detriment of the applicants, despite the fact that both the structures of the individual cartels and the individual participation of the undertakings differed greatly from one another. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: infringement of Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in conjunction with paragraphs 19, 20 and 25 of Guidelines on the method of setting fines (3) and the principle of equal treatment

By this plea in law the applicants claim that, for all cartels covered by the decision imposing the fine and for all relevant undertakings, a uniform share of turnover of 16 % for determining the basic amount and a uniform hardcore additional amount of 16 % were fixed, to the detriment of the applicants, despite the fact that both the structures of the individual cartels and the individual participation of the undertakings differed greatly from one another.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

(3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/43

---

Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)

(Case T-617/15)

(2016/C 016/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘eSMOKINGWORLD’ — Application for registration No 12 581 741

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2015 in Case R 3227/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

—

Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)

(Case T-621/15)

(2016/C 016/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tractel Greifzug GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and C. Maierhöfer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a motorised rope winch) — Community trade mark No 7 033 061

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1658/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/44

---

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)

(Case T-623/15)

(2016/C 016/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, A. Marx and A. Berger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!’ — Application No 13 510 123

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2015 in Case R 479/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the proceedings before OHIM.

Plea 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.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/45

---

Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission

(Case T-624/15)

(2016/C 016/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania), Starmill Srl (Drăgăneşti), Multipack Srl (Drăgăneşti), Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns each of the applicants, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicants shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns each of the applicants, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicants shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicants, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicants, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1). |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).

---

(1)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 83, p. 1 (as amended).

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/46

---

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

(Case T-625/15)

(2016/C 016/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SPA VILLAGE’ — Application for registration No 3 841 202

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2015 in Case R 1954/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/47

---

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)

(Case T-629/15)

(2016/C 016/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCRUBMASTER’ — Application No 12 492 617

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 2197/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | 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;

| — | 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 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA)

(Case T-634/15)

(2016/C 016/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRINSA LA CONSERVA’ — Application for registration No 11 495 728

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 2382/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

| — | Priority rights in respect of the term FRINSA and peaceful coexistence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Priority rights in respect of the term FRINSA and peaceful coexistence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.

| — | Well-known character of the mark FRINSA. |
| --- | --- |

—

Well-known character of the mark FRINSA.

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

—

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

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)

(Case T-635/15)

(2016/C 016/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tuum Srl (San Giustino, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘TUUM’ — Application for registration No 11 939 774

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2624/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the claimed goods in Class 14; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the claimed goods in Class 14;

| — | instruct OHIM to register the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

instruct OHIM to register the mark applied for;

| — | order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/49

---

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission

(Case T-636/15)

(2016/C 016/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA) (Rome, Italy), Ericsson telecomunicazioni SpA (Rome, Italy), Italdata SpA (Avellino, Italy) and Linea Com Srl (Cremona, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, I. Perego, M.S. Serpone and M. Serpone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision, in full or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, in full or in part;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 28 August 2015 (Ref. Ares [2015] 3 551 496) regarding Termination of grant agreement 621078 project VIRGO.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter, Article 135 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 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), and Article 208 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.






  — | The Commission did not hear the applicants prior to the adoption of the decision by which it made provision for the termination of the grant agreement and ordered the repayment of the amounts received as advance funding. The Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of the defence, and also infringed Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter. In addition, the Commission based the decision purely on assessments made by external experts, making reference to those assessments without providing a self-standing statement of reasons in that decision. The Commission thus infringed the principle of sound administration and breached its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter, Article 135 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 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), and Article 208 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1), and a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.

—

The Commission did not hear the applicants prior to the adoption of the decision by which it made provision for the termination of the grant agreement and ordered the repayment of the amounts received as advance funding. The Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of the defence, and also infringed Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter. In addition, the Commission based the decision purely on assessments made by external experts, making reference to those assessments without providing a self-standing statement of reasons in that decision. The Commission thus infringed the principle of sound administration and breached its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors of assessment, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons, and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, and Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012.






  — | The assessments carried out by the Commission and by its external experts forming the basis of the decision are the result of incorrect assessments of fact and of law and are not supported by a consistent and adequate statement of reasons. The Commission also infringed Article 135(3) and (4) of Regulation No 966/2012. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of assessment, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons, and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, and Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012.

—

The assessments carried out by the Commission and by its external experts forming the basis of the decision are the result of incorrect assessments of fact and of law and are not supported by a consistent and adequate statement of reasons. The Commission also infringed Article 135(3) and (4) of Regulation No 966/2012.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of assessment, infringement of the principles of proportionality and sound administration, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons, and infringement of Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the Guide to Financial Issues relating to ICT PSP Grant Agreement.






  — | The Commission did not correctly assess the differing levels of importance of individual deliverables to the project as a whole, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations to ensure sound administration and infringing the rules laid down in that regard by the Guide to Financial Issues relating to ICT PSP Grant Agreement. The Commission also failed to provide a specific and adequate statement of reasons in that regard. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of assessment, infringement of the principles of proportionality and sound administration, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons, and infringement of Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the Guide to Financial Issues relating to ICT PSP Grant Agreement.

—

The Commission did not correctly assess the differing levels of importance of individual deliverables to the project as a whole, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations to ensure sound administration and infringing the rules laid down in that regard by the Guide to Financial Issues relating to ICT PSP Grant Agreement. The Commission also failed to provide a specific and adequate statement of reasons in that regard.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the principle of proportionality, and a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.






  — | The Commission imposed the order for recovery of the full amount of advance funding without taking due account of the importance of the project for European Union policies and the reusability of the work carried out by the consortium. In so doing, the Commission infringed Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the principle of proportionality, and a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.

—

The Commission imposed the order for recovery of the full amount of advance funding without taking due account of the importance of the project for European Union policies and the reusability of the work carried out by the consortium. In so doing, the Commission infringed Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012, Article 208 of Regulation No 1268/2012, and the principle of proportionality.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/50

---

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)

(Case T-638/15)

(2016/C 016/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud, P. Marchiset, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALCOLOCK’ — Community trade mark No 8 443 301

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 1323/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare valid the CTM Trademark owned and registered in the name of Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International), Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare valid the CTM Trademark owned and registered in the name of Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International), Inc.;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 10(2) of Directive No 2008/95 and Article 19(2) of TRIPS, lack of motivation and misrepresentation of the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 10(2) of Directive No 2008/95 and Article 19(2) of TRIPS, lack of motivation and misrepresentation of the facts;

| — | Infringement of Articles 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and insufficient motivation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and insufficient motivation;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU and violation of the definition of genuine use pursuant to Regulation No. 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU and violation of the definition of genuine use pursuant to Regulation No. 207/2009.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/52

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-33/14)

((Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative - No new representative appointed - Applicant ceasing the answer the Tribunal’s requests - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 016/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: Z, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request of 20 January 2013 for payment of the sum of EUR 700 000 in respect of compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred as a result of the decision to reassign the applicant to Brussels.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-33/14 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-33/14 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs.

---

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/52

---

Action brought on 1 October 2015 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-130/15)

(2016/C 016/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase in respect of 2015 in the Annual Salary Review procedure and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Executive Board’s decision, adopted on 24 February 2015 and communicated to staff on 13 March 2015, not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase in respect of 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Executive Board’s decision, adopted on 24 February 2015 and communicated to staff on 13 March 2015, not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase in respect of 2015;

| — | annul the decision dated 10 July 2014 and received on 20 July 2014 rejecting the special appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 10 July 2014 and received on 20 July 2014 rejecting the special appeal;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department not to consider or propose the applicant for an ASA, impliedly communicated by the Executive Board’s decision of 24 February 2015 and by the decision dated 10 July 2015 rejecting the special appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department not to consider or propose the applicant for an ASA, impliedly communicated by the Executive Board’s decision of 24 February 2015 and by the decision dated 10 July 2015 rejecting the special appeal;

| — | order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the material harm consisting in the loss of an opportunity of obtaining an ASA in 2015, assessed at EUR 49 102, or, in the alternative, annul the procedure which led to the decision of 24 February 2015 and order the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for the grant of additional salary increases in respect of 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the material harm consisting in the loss of an opportunity of obtaining an ASA in 2015, assessed at EUR 49 102, or, in the alternative, annul the procedure which led to the decision of 24 February 2015 and order the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for the grant of additional salary increases in respect of 2015;

| — | order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the non-material harm incurred, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation to the applicant in respect of the non-material harm incurred, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;

| — | order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs.

---