# Official Journal C 371/10 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 371 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5910 October 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 371

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5910 October 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 371/01 | 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 371/01

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 371/02 | Case C-369/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission | 2 |
| 2016/C 371/03 | Case C-383/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken | 3 |
| 2016/C 371/04 | Case C-397/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 18 July 2016 — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG | 4 |
| 2016/C 371/05 | Case C-398/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 4 |
| 2016/C 371/06 | Case C-399/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 5 |
| 2016/C 371/07 | Case C-427/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Chez Elektro Balgaria AD v Yordan Kotsev | 6 |
| 2016/C 371/08 | Case C-428/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Frontex International ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev | 6 |
| 2016/C 371/09 | Case C-430/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council | 7 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 371/10 | Case T-360/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Dimos Athinaion v Commission | 9 |
| 2016/C 371/11 | Case T-370/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission | 9 |
| 2016/C 371/12 | Case T-399/16: Action brought on 25 July 2016 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission | 10 |
| 2016/C 371/13 | Case T-400/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY) | 11 |
| 2016/C 371/14 | Case T-409/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council | 12 |
| 2016/C 371/15 | Case T-410/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council | 13 |
| 2016/C 371/16 | Case T-417/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission | 14 |
| 2016/C 371/17 | Case T-423/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission | 15 |
| 2016/C 371/18 | Case T-430/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX) | 16 |
| 2016/C 371/19 | Case T-431/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission | 16 |
| 2016/C 371/20 | Case T-433/16: Action brought on 3 August 2016 — Pometon v Commission | 17 |
| 2016/C 371/21 | Case T-436/16: Action brought on 3 August 2016 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission | 19 |
| 2016/C 371/22 | Case T-437/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Italy v Commission | 20 |
| 2016/C 371/23 | Case T-443/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission | 21 |
| 2016/C 371/24 | Case T-446/16 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament | 22 |
| 2016/C 371/25 | Case T-453/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas) | 23 |
| 2016/C 371/26 | Case T-464/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission | 24 |
| 2016/C 371/27 | Case T-465/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA) | 25 |
| 2016/C 371/28 | Case T-466/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB | 25 |
| 2016/C 371/29 | Case T-468/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission | 26 |
| 2016/C 371/30 | Case T-474/16: Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission | 28 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 371/31 | Case F-39/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 29 |
| 2016/C 371/32 | Case F-41/16: Action brought on 11 August 2016 — ZZ v EEAS | 29 |
| 2016/C 371/33 | Case F-42/16: Action brought on 12 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB | 30 |
| 2016/C 371/34 | Case F-43/16: Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 31 |
| 2016/C 371/35 | Case F-44/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 31 |
| 2016/C 371/36 | Case F-45/16: Action brought on 17 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB | 32 |
| 2016/C 371/37 | Case F-46/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 32 |
| 2016/C 371/38 | Case F-47/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 33 |
| 2016/C 371/39 | Case F-48/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission | 33 |
| 2016/C 371/40 | Case F-85/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission | 34 |
| 2016/C 371/41 | Case F-18/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission | 34 |
| 2016/C 371/42 | Case F-19/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission | 35 |
| 2016/C 371/43 | Case F-57/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission | 35 |
| 2016/C 371/44 | Case F-70/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission | 35 |
| 2016/C 371/45 | Case F-128/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission | 35 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 371/02

Case C-369/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

2

2016/C 371/03

Case C-383/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

3

2016/C 371/04

Case C-397/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 18 July 2016 — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG

4

2016/C 371/05

Case C-398/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

4

2016/C 371/06

Case C-399/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

5

2016/C 371/07

Case C-427/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Chez Elektro Balgaria AD v Yordan Kotsev

6

2016/C 371/08

Case C-428/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Frontex International ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev

6

2016/C 371/09

Case C-430/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council

7

General Court

2016/C 371/10

Case T-360/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Dimos Athinaion v Commission

9

2016/C 371/11

Case T-370/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission

9

2016/C 371/12

Case T-399/16: Action brought on 25 July 2016 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission

10

2016/C 371/13

Case T-400/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

11

2016/C 371/14

Case T-409/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

12

2016/C 371/15

Case T-410/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

13

2016/C 371/16

Case T-417/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission

14

2016/C 371/17

Case T-423/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission

15

2016/C 371/18

Case T-430/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

16

2016/C 371/19

Case T-431/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission

16

2016/C 371/20

Case T-433/16: Action brought on 3 August 2016 — Pometon v Commission

17

2016/C 371/21

Case T-436/16: Action brought on 3 August 2016 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission

19

2016/C 371/22

Case T-437/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

20

2016/C 371/23

Case T-443/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

21

2016/C 371/24

Case T-446/16 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament

22

2016/C 371/25

Case T-453/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)

23

2016/C 371/26

Case T-464/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission

24

2016/C 371/27

Case T-465/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

25

2016/C 371/28

Case T-466/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB

25

2016/C 371/29

Case T-468/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

26

2016/C 371/30

Case T-474/16: Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission

28

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 371/31

Case F-39/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

29

2016/C 371/32

Case F-41/16: Action brought on 11 August 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

29

2016/C 371/33

Case F-42/16: Action brought on 12 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB

30

2016/C 371/34

Case F-43/16: Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

31

2016/C 371/35

Case F-44/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

31

2016/C 371/36

Case F-45/16: Action brought on 17 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB

32

2016/C 371/37

Case F-46/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

32

2016/C 371/38

Case F-47/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

33

2016/C 371/39

Case F-48/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

33

2016/C 371/40

Case F-85/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission

34

2016/C 371/41

Case F-18/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission

34

2016/C 371/42

Case F-19/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission

35

2016/C 371/43

Case F-57/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission

35

2016/C 371/44

Case F-70/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission

35

2016/C 371/45

Case F-128/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission

35

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/1

---

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

(2016/C 371/01)

Last publication

OJ C 364, 3.10.2016

Past publications

OJ C 350, 26.9.2016

OJ C 343, 19.9.2016

OJ C 335, 12.9.2016

OJ C 326, 5.9.2016

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/2

---

Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-369/16 P)

(2016/C 371/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, T. Joyce, agents, P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment

| — | annul the Decision (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision (1)

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland relies on four pleas in this appeal:

| a) | The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

a)

The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.

| b) | The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable. |
| --- | --- |

b)

The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.

| c) | The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

c)

The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.

| d) | The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

d)

The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.

---

(1)  2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel in a production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C (2005) 4436)

OJ L 119, p. 12

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1989 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

OJ L 83, p. 1

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-383/16)

(2016/C 371/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vion Livestock B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations..., read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations..., read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country?

| 2. | Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport..., read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport..., read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

| 3. | Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 18 July 2016 — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG

(Case C-397/16)

(2016/C 371/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Acacia Srl

Respondents: Pneusgarda Srl (in bankruptcy), Audi AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Do (a) the principles of the free movement of goods and of the freedom to provide services within the internal market, (b) the principle of the effectiveness of EU competition law and of the liberalisation of the internal market, (c) the principles of effet utile and of the uniform application within the European Union of EU law and (d) the provisions of secondary EU law, such as Directive 98/71, (1) and in particular Article 14 thereof, Article 1 of Regulation No 461/2010 (2) and UNECE Regulation No. 124, preclude an interpretation of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002, (3) which contains the repair clause, that excludes replica wheels aesthetically identical to original equipment wheels and approved on the basis of UNECE Regulation No. 124 from the definition of a ‘component part of a complex product’ (that complex product being a motor vehicle) for the purposes of the repair of that complex product and the restoration of its original appearance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do (a) the principles of the free movement of goods and of the freedom to provide services within the internal market, (b) the principle of the effectiveness of EU competition law and of the liberalisation of the internal market, (c) the principles of effet utile and of the uniform application within the European Union of EU law and (d) the provisions of secondary EU law, such as Directive 98/71, (1) and in particular Article 14 thereof, Article 1 of Regulation No 461/2010 (2) and UNECE Regulation No. 124, preclude an interpretation of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002, (3) which contains the repair clause, that excludes replica wheels aesthetically identical to original equipment wheels and approved on the basis of UNECE Regulation No. 124 from the definition of a ‘component part of a complex product’ (that complex product being a motor vehicle) for the purposes of the repair of that complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, do the rules on exclusive industrial rights in respect of registered designs, regard being had to the balancing of the interests referred to in the first question, preclude the application of the repair clause to replica complementary products that may be selected freely by the customer, on the basis that the repair clause is to be interpreted restrictively and may be relied upon only with respect to spare parts that come in one particular form only, that is to say, component parts the form of which has been determined in practically immutable fashion with respect to the external appearance of the complex product, to the exclusion of component parts that may be regarded as interchangeable and that may be applied freely, in accordance with the customer wishes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, do the rules on exclusive industrial rights in respect of registered designs, regard being had to the balancing of the interests referred to in the first question, preclude the application of the repair clause to replica complementary products that may be selected freely by the customer, on the basis that the repair clause is to be interpreted restrictively and may be relied upon only with respect to spare parts that come in one particular form only, that is to say, component parts the form of which has been determined in practically immutable fashion with respect to the external appearance of the complex product, to the exclusion of component parts that may be regarded as interchangeable and that may be applied freely, in accordance with the customer wishes?

| 3. | In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, what steps must a manufacturer of replica wheels take in order to ensure the free movement of products the intended use of which is the repair of a complex product and the restoration of its original appearance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, what steps must a manufacturer of replica wheels take in order to ensure the free movement of products the intended use of which is the repair of a complex product and the restoration of its original appearance?

---

(1)  Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 461/2010 of 27 May 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2010 L 129, p. 52).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-398/16)

(2016/C 371/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan associated with a capital contribution made to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas that deduction could have been availed of if that subsidiary had been included with that parent company in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of a Netherlands single tax entity — in view of the fact that, in that case, by reason of consolidation, there would be no obvious association with such a capital contribution?

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-399/16)

(2016/C 371/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X NV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State cannot take into account a currency loss in connection with the amount which it has invested in a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas it would be able to do so if that subsidiary were to be included in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of the Netherlands single tax entity — with that parent company established in the first-mentioned Member State, as a result of consolidation within the single tax entity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State cannot take into account a currency loss in connection with the amount which it has invested in a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas it would be able to do so if that subsidiary were to be included in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of the Netherlands single tax entity — with that parent company established in the first-mentioned Member State, as a result of consolidation within the single tax entity?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can or must the point of departure for determining the currency loss to be taken into account be that (one or more of) the direct and indirect subsidiaries indirectly held by the parent company concerned, through the subsidiary in question, and established in the European Union, should also be included in the single tax entity? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can or must the point of departure for determining the currency loss to be taken into account be that (one or more of) the direct and indirect subsidiaries indirectly held by the parent company concerned, through the subsidiary in question, and established in the European Union, should also be included in the single tax entity?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: should account be taken only of currency losses that would have been reflected on the parent company’s inclusion in the single tax entity in the years to which the dispute relates, or should the currency exchange results that would have been reflected in earlier years also be taken into account? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: should account be taken only of currency losses that would have been reflected on the parent company’s inclusion in the single tax entity in the years to which the dispute relates, or should the currency exchange results that would have been reflected in earlier years also be taken into account?

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD v Yordan Kotsev

(Case C-427/16)

(2016/C 371/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Chez Elektro Balgaria’ AD

Defendant: Yordan Kotsev

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 4. | Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

| 5. | Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 6. | Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

| 7. | Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

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

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Frontex International’ ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev

(Case C-428/16)

(2016/C 371/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Frontex International’ ЕАD

Defendant: Emil Yanakiev

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 4. | Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

| 5. | Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

| 6. | Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

| 7. | Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

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

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/7

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2016 by Bank Mellat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13: Bank Mellat v Council

(Case C-430/16 P)

(2016/C 371/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bank Mellat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, R. Blakeley, J. MacLeod, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Council of the European Union,

European Commission,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment;

| — | Annul Article 1(15) of Regulation 1263 (1) either in its entirety or insofar as it applies to the Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1(15) of Regulation 1263 (1) either in its entirety or insofar as it applies to the Bank;

| — | Declare that Article 1(6) of Decision 635 (2) is inapplicable to the Bank; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Article 1(6) of Decision 635 (2) is inapplicable to the Bank; and

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Appellant, Bank Mellat (the ‘Bank’), appeals against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13 Bank Mellat v Council EU:T:2016:331 (the ‘Judgment’). In summary, the Bank contends that the General Court erred in failing to uphold its application to annul or declare inapplicable to the Bank various measures constituting a ‘Financial Embargo’ on the Bank, namely:






  (1) | Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Appellant, Bank Mellat (the ‘Bank’), appeals against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 in Case T-160/13 Bank Mellat v Council EU:T:2016:331 (the ‘Judgment’). In summary, the Bank contends that the General Court erred in failing to uphold its application to annul or declare inapplicable to the Bank various measures constituting a ‘Financial Embargo’ on the Bank, namely:

(1)

Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012.

| (2) | Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP.

| 2. | In particular, the Bank has identified three grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the Bank’s application:






  (1) | The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the requirement of ‘necessity’ in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) (1st Ground). |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

In particular, the Bank has identified three grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the Bank’s application:

(1)

The General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the requirement of ‘necessity’ in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) (1st Ground).

| (2) | The General Court erred in finding that the Financial Embargo was proportionate, entailing a number of further specific errors of law (2nd Ground). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The General Court erred in finding that the Financial Embargo was proportionate, entailing a number of further specific errors of law (2nd Ground).

| (3) | The General Court erred in holding that the Financial Embargo was compliant with other general principles of EU law (3rd Ground). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The General Court erred in holding that the Financial Embargo was compliant with other general principles of EU law (3rd Ground).

| 3. | The Bank has also identified two broad grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the admissibility of parts of the Bank’s application:






  (1) | The General Court wrongly severed elements of the Financial Embargo and held the Bank’s application in respect of them to be inadmissible (4th Ground). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Bank has also identified two broad grounds of appeal concerning errors of law in the General Court’s assessment of the admissibility of parts of the Bank’s application:

(1)

The General Court wrongly severed elements of the Financial Embargo and held the Bank’s application in respect of them to be inadmissible (4th Ground).

| (2) | The General Court erred in finding in particular that there was no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 275 TFEU to determine the Bank’s challenge to Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP (5th Ground). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The General Court erred in finding in particular that there was no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 275 TFEU to determine the Bank’s challenge to Article 1(6) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP (5th Ground).

| 4. | The Bank respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment and make the order sought by the Bank. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Bank respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment and make the order sought by the Bank.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34

(2)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58

---

General Court

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Dimos Athinaion v Commission

(Case T-360/16)

(2016/C 371/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimos Athinaion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: G. Georgakarakos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), (1) and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea in law claims an infringement of Article 191 TFEU, which sets out the objectives of the European Union policy on the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law claims an infringement of Article 191 TFEU, which sets out the objectives of the European Union policy on the environment.

| 2. | The second plea in law claims an infringement of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which affirms the right to a high level of environmental protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law claims an infringement of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which affirms the right to a high level of environmental protection.

| 3. | The third plea in law claims an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (ΕC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law claims an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (ΕC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. (2)

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 2016, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 171, 2007, p. 1.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/9

---

Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission

(Case T-370/16)

(2016/C 371/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Anheuser-Busch Inbev (Brussels, Belgium) and Ampar (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Haelterman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

| — | order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits Adjustments system constitutes State aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits Adjustments system constitutes State aid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in identifying the groups as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in identifying the groups as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/10

---

Action brought on 25 July 2016 — CK Telecoms UK Investments v Commission

(Case T-399/16)

(2016/C 371/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Wessely and O. Brouwer, lawyers, and A. Woods, J. Aitken and M. Davis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2016, C (2016) 2796 in case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited/Telefónica (Europe plc), notified to Hutchison on 13 May 2016 declaring the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2016, C (2016) 2796 in case COMP/M.7612 — Hutchison 3G UK Investments Limited/Telefónica (Europe plc), notified to Hutchison on 13 May 2016 declaring the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Europe plc by Hutchison incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 in its entirety; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those related to any potential intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those related to any potential intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, and infringement of essential procedural requirements in the interpretation and application of the legal test for the assessment of horizontal non-coordinated effects in the market for retail mobile telecommunications services in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred with respect to the qualification of the applicant as an ‘important competitive force’ and in assessing closeness of competition. The Commission also committed manifest errors of assessment in the analysis of the predicted price effects and likely incentives of the merged entity following the Concentration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, and infringement of essential procedural requirements in the interpretation and application of the legal test for the assessment of horizontal non-coordinated effects in the market for retail mobile telecommunications services in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred with respect to the qualification of the applicant as an ‘important competitive force’ and in assessing closeness of competition. The Commission also committed manifest errors of assessment in the analysis of the predicted price effects and likely incentives of the merged entity following the Concentration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and distortion of the evidence with respect to the analysis of the counterfactual scenario. In particular: the Commission failed to assess Hutchison’s network capacity relative to that of its competitors and impermissibly relies on the alleged ability of Hutchison to adopt ‘demand management’ initiatives, such as increasing prices, as a reason for rejecting Hutchison’s evidence concerning future network capacity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and distortion of the evidence with respect to the analysis of the counterfactual scenario. In particular: the Commission failed to assess Hutchison’s network capacity relative to that of its competitors and impermissibly relies on the alleged ability of Hutchison to adopt ‘demand management’ initiatives, such as increasing prices, as a reason for rejecting Hutchison’s evidence concerning future network capacity.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising from network sharing. In particular: the Commission has erred in relation to its novel propositions concerning the necessity and extent of ‘alignment’ between competitors in network sharing agreements; and the Commission has committed an error of law and manifest errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on potential harm to competitors of the merged entity rather than competition. The Commission committed further errors in rejecting Commitments offered by Hutchison that would have fully resolved all of its concerns relating to network sharing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising from network sharing. In particular: the Commission has erred in relation to its novel propositions concerning the necessity and extent of ‘alignment’ between competitors in network sharing agreements; and the Commission has committed an error of law and manifest errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on potential harm to competitors of the merged entity rather than competition. The Commission committed further errors in rejecting Commitments offered by Hutchison that would have fully resolved all of its concerns relating to network sharing.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, errors of law and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising in the wholesale market for access and call origination on public mobile networks in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred in concluding that Hutchison is an ‘important competitive force’ in the wholesale market despite having a very small market share (less than 3 %); and in basing its conclusions on the opinions of third parties instead of conducting its own analysis. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, errors of law and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising in the wholesale market for access and call origination on public mobile networks in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission erred in concluding that Hutchison is an ‘important competitive force’ in the wholesale market despite having a very small market share (less than 3 %); and in basing its conclusions on the opinions of third parties instead of conducting its own analysis.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, lack of reasoning and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to the evaluation of the Commitments offered by Hutchison in respect of concerns relating to the retail and wholesale mobile telecommunications markets in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission incorrectly objected to the proposed Commitments alleging uncertainty of their implementation; the Commission has manifestly erred in its assessment of the ability of new and strengthened competitors to compete effectively on the basis of the proposed Commitments; and the Commission erred in its assessment of the overall suitability of the proposed Commitments to offset the loss of competition alleged in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of law, manifest errors of assessment, lack of reasoning and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to the evaluation of the Commitments offered by Hutchison in respect of concerns relating to the retail and wholesale mobile telecommunications markets in the United Kingdom. In particular: the Commission incorrectly objected to the proposed Commitments alleging uncertainty of their implementation; the Commission has manifestly erred in its assessment of the ability of new and strengthened competitors to compete effectively on the basis of the proposed Commitments; and the Commission erred in its assessment of the overall suitability of the proposed Commitments to offset the loss of competition alleged in the decision.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/11

---

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Maximum Play v EUIPO (MAXPLAY)

(Case T-400/16)

(2016/C 371/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maximum Play, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MAXPLAY’ — Application for registration No 14 047 963

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 2273/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take into account properly previous European Union trade mark and national registrations as well as a national application.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-409/16)

(2016/C 371/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

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

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-410/16, Makhlouf v Council.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-410/16)

(2016/C 371/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

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

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/14

---

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission

(Case T-417/16)

(2016/C 371/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Achemos Grupė UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Martens and C. Maczkovics, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November 2013 in case State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) — Lithuania, Aid to Klaipedos Nafta — LNG Terminal, Brussels, C(2013) 7884 final, OJ C 161, 2016, p. 1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November 2013 in case State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) — Lithuania, Aid to Klaipedos Nafta — LNG Terminal, Brussels, C(2013) 7884 final, OJ C 161, 2016, p. 1; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of procedural rules contained in Article 108(2) TFEU, in Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and of good administration, because, despite the serious difficulties involved in assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the State aid measures at issue, the Commission solely relied on a preliminary examination of the State aid measures, whereas, in view of those serious difficulties, the Commission was under an obligation to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of procedural rules contained in Article 108(2) TFEU, in Article 4(4) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and of good administration, because, despite the serious difficulties involved in assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the State aid measures at issue, the Commission solely relied on a preliminary examination of the State aid measures, whereas, in view of those serious difficulties, the Commission was under an obligation to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, because the Commission does not apply correctly the criteria of assessment as set out in Recital 135 of the contested decision, whereas,






  — | first part, as regards the appropriateness and necessity of the measures, the Commission should have assessed those measures concretely and examined whether there were other, better-targeted instruments; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, because the Commission does not apply correctly the criteria of assessment as set out in Recital 135 of the contested decision, whereas,

—

first part, as regards the appropriateness and necessity of the measures, the Commission should have assessed those measures concretely and examined whether there were other, better-targeted instruments;

| — | second part, the Commission should have concluded to the lack of incentive effect since KN is legally obliged to develop the LNG Terminal; |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, the Commission should have concluded to the lack of incentive effect since KN is legally obliged to develop the LNG Terminal;

| — | third part, the Commission should have assessed whether the size of the subsidised LNG Terminal was proportionate to attain the objective pursued and did not create overcapacity. |
| --- | --- |

—

third part, the Commission should have assessed whether the size of the subsidised LNG Terminal was proportionate to attain the objective pursued and did not create overcapacity.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 106(2) TFEU, of the SGEI Framework (2) and of the general principles such as equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations, as well as of the procurement rules contained in Directive 2004/18 (3), and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18, because the Commission wrongfully applied the SGEI Framework, in accepting a direct entrustment of KN for a period of 55 years with a profit corresponding to the project internal rate of return, whereas,






  — | first part, the entrustment period should have been justified by reference to objective criteria without exceeding the period required for the (financial) depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 106(2) TFEU, of the SGEI Framework (2) and of the general principles such as equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations, as well as of the procurement rules contained in Directive 2004/18 (3), and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18, because the Commission wrongfully applied the SGEI Framework, in accepting a direct entrustment of KN for a period of 55 years with a profit corresponding to the project internal rate of return, whereas,

—

first part, the entrustment period should have been justified by reference to objective criteria without exceeding the period required for the (financial) depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI;

| — | second part, appointment of KN could not have been exempted from procurement rules on grounds of the protection of essential (security) interests within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18 since alternative means, that are less restrictive in nature then a direct award, are available in in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, appointment of KN could not have been exempted from procurement rules on grounds of the protection of essential (security) interests within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2004/18 since alternative means, that are less restrictive in nature then a direct award, are available in in the present case;

| — | third part, given the level of risk borne by KN, the latter's profit should have been limited to the relevant swap rate (as possibly re-evaluated to take maturity into account) plus a premium of 100 basis points. |
| --- | --- |

—

third part, given the level of risk borne by KN, the latter's profit should have been limited to the relevant swap rate (as possibly re-evaluated to take maturity into account) plus a premium of 100 basis points.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 2015, p. 9)

(2)  Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011), (OJ 2012, C 8, p. 15) (hereafter, the ‘SGEI Framework’)

(3)  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 L 134, 2004, p. 114)

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/15

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T-423/16)

(2016/C 371/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 20 May 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 20 May 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 13 July 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 13 July 2016 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

  The applicant claims that the defendant’s decisions of May 2016 and 13 July 2016 infringe the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decisions of May 2016 and 13 July 2016 infringe the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
  The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.
  The applicant claims, in that regard, that the exceptions to the transparency requirement to which Article 4(3) and (1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 refers are not applicable in the present case.
  Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons, as well as an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.

The applicant claims, in that regard, that the exceptions to the transparency requirement to which Article 4(3) and (1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 refers are not applicable in the present case.

Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons, as well as an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2012 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT INDEX)

(Case T-430/16)

(2016/C 371/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: P. Heusler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BRENT INDEX’ — Application for registration No 14 284 947

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 in Case R 8/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay de costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission

(Case T-431/16)

(2016/C 371/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and

| — | 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

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, by which the applicant’s complaint was rejected on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.

In this connection, the applicant submits that the application or non-application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is not within the Commission’s power of discretion. On the contrary, it argues, the Commission must take into account the particular circumstances of each case and cannot, on the basis of that provision and without further clarification, reject a matter already under examination by a national authority.

---

(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).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/17

---

Action brought on 3 August 2016 — Pometon v Commission

(Case T-433/16)

(2016/C 371/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pometon SpA (Martellago, Italy) (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

primarily, annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on Pometon; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on Pometon;

| — | order the defendant to repay any sums paid by the applicant in complying with the contested decision during the proceedings and to reimburse any other costs borne by the applicant in complying with that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to repay any sums paid by the applicant in complying with the contested decision during the proceedings and to reimburse any other costs borne by the applicant in complying with that decision;

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal fees and any other costs and charges connected with the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal fees and any other costs and charges connected with the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (‘the contested decision’).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of a fair trial, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence, as the Commission ascribed specific conduct to Pometon in the context of Decision C(2014) 2074 final of 2 April 2014 (‘the settlement decision’), adopted in respect of Ervin Industries Inc. and Ervin Amasteel, Winoa SA and WHA Holding SAS, Metalltechnik Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG and Eisenwerk Wurth GmbH (‘the other parties’), and thus took the contested decision without having had the opportunity impartially to assess, free from any constraints, Pometon’s position or the arguments put forward by that company in its defence.






  — | In the settlement decision — and thus before Pometon had been given the opportunity to defend itself — the Commission expressly ascribed to the applicant the same conduct imputed to the other parties, to which a specific infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement was then attributed, in that same settlement decision, precisely because of that conduct. This inevitably and irremediably undermined the Commission’s ability to make a truly impartial decision regarding the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of a fair trial, the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence, as the Commission ascribed specific conduct to Pometon in the context of Decision C(2014) 2074 final of 2 April 2014 (‘the settlement decision’), adopted in respect of Ervin Industries Inc. and Ervin Amasteel, Winoa SA and WHA Holding SAS, Metalltechnik Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG and Eisenwerk Wurth GmbH (‘the other parties’), and thus took the contested decision without having had the opportunity impartially to assess, free from any constraints, Pometon’s position or the arguments put forward by that company in its defence.

—

In the settlement decision — and thus before Pometon had been given the opportunity to defend itself — the Commission expressly ascribed to the applicant the same conduct imputed to the other parties, to which a specific infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement was then attributed, in that same settlement decision, precisely because of that conduct. This inevitably and irremediably undermined the Commission’s ability to make a truly impartial decision regarding the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons, and infringement of the rights of the defence and the burden of proof, as the Commission ascribed to the applicant, without evidence, participation in an alleged cartel in which it did not, in fact, participate.






  — | In support of its arguments, the Commission adduced evidence that was imprecise, contradictory, unclear and not sufficient to establish Pometon’s participation in the alleged cartel. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons, and infringement of the rights of the defence and the burden of proof, as the Commission ascribed to the applicant, without evidence, participation in an alleged cartel in which it did not, in fact, participate.

—

In support of its arguments, the Commission adduced evidence that was imprecise, contradictory, unclear and not sufficient to establish Pometon’s participation in the alleged cartel.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, errors of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation, and manifest illogicality, as the Commission found that the conduct attributed to Pometon had as its object a restriction of competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, errors of assessment, failure to conduct a proper investigation, and manifest illogicality, as the Commission found that the conduct attributed to Pometon had as its object a restriction of competition.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, failure to state reasons and to conduct a proper investigation, failure to have due regard for the burden of proof as regards the duration of the applicant’s presumed participation in the alleged cartel and, as a result, infringement of Articles 23(2), 25(1) and 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as the Commission imposed a financial penalty on the applicant even though it was time-barred.






  — | According to the applicant, the date on which its alleged participation in the presumed infringement ascribed to it in the contested decision came to an end cannot be the date identified by the Commission but, at the outside, a much earlier date, so that the Commission’s power to impose fines must be regarded as time-barred. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, failure to state reasons and to conduct a proper investigation, failure to have due regard for the burden of proof as regards the duration of the applicant’s presumed participation in the alleged cartel and, as a result, infringement of Articles 23(2), 25(1) and 25(5) of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as the Commission imposed a financial penalty on the applicant even though it was time-barred.

—

According to the applicant, the date on which its alleged participation in the presumed infringement ascribed to it in the contested decision came to an end cannot be the date identified by the Commission but, at the outside, a much earlier date, so that the Commission’s power to impose fines must be regarded as time-barred.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a total failure to state reasons and infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in fixing the amount of the fine when adjustments are made to the basic amount pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.






  — | The Commission used Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines in a way that was clearly discriminatory, applying, in Pometon’s case, a rate of abatement of the fine that was distinctly lower than the rate applied to the other parties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a total failure to state reasons and infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in fixing the amount of the fine when adjustments are made to the basic amount pursuant to Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

—

The Commission used Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines in a way that was clearly discriminatory, applying, in Pometon’s case, a rate of abatement of the fine that was distinctly lower than the rate applied to the other parties.

---

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/19

---

Action brought on 3 August 2016 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission

(Case T-436/16)

(2016/C 371/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) (Algrange, France), Philippe Kazenas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Wizel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 536 912 representing the financial losses suffered as a result of sunk investments made in respect of visits prior to the award of public contracts, which awards were carried out fraudulently; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 536 912 representing the financial losses suffered as a result of sunk investments made in respect of visits prior to the award of public contracts, which awards were carried out fraudulently;

| — | order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 2 092 650 for loss of profit in respect of the public contracts which AEIM would have obtained had they been awarded fairly and without corruption; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM the sum of EUR 2 092 650 for loss of profit in respect of the public contracts which AEIM would have obtained had they been awarded fairly and without corruption;

| — | order the defendant to reimburse Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 85 000 in respect of the costs and fees of the lawyer that he was obliged to pay for conducting his defence, as a result of corruption on the part of the European official; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 85 000 in respect of the costs and fees of the lawyer that he was obliged to pay for conducting his defence, as a result of corruption on the part of the European official;

| — | order the defendant to pay to Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 150 000 in respect of non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to Mr Kazenas the sum of EUR 150 000 in respect of non-material damage;

| — | order the defendant to pay to AEIM compensatory interest on all those amounts from December 2005, being the end of the period of infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to AEIM compensatory interest on all those amounts from December 2005, being the end of the period of infringement;

| — | order the defendant to reimburse lawyers’ costs and fees in respect of the present proceedings representing the sum of EUR 75 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse lawyers’ costs and fees in respect of the present proceedings representing the sum of EUR 75 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay default interest from the date on which judgment is delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay default interest from the date on which judgment is delivered;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that unlawful conduct on the part of an official of the European Commission in the context of the award of public contracts led to their suffering serious damage directly linked to that conduct, and they seek compensation in respect of that damage.

They submit accordingly that the three conditions for invoking the non-contractual liability of the European Union are satisfied, namely unlawful conduct on the part of an institution or one of its servants, the fact of damage and a causal link between the conduct of that servant and the damage complained of.

In the present case, they claim that acts of corruption on the part of a European official in the context of the award of public contracts constitute a sufficiently serious breach of the principles of equal treatment and transparency which the contracting authority must observe in relation to all tenderers in tendering procedures.

The applicants submit that the fraudulent award of the public contracts in question led to the company AEIM suffering genuine damage since it was awarded contracts relating to countries deemed dangerous, which the other two — corrupting — tenderers did not wish to be awarded, whereas had all the contracts been awarded without corruption, that company, being the only one to have tendered with probity, would have obtained those contracts.

They rely on the principle of good administration on the part of the Commission, in the observance of which there were serious shortcomings in this instance, as well as on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations which extends to any trader in a situation in which an institution has caused it to entertain justified expectations.

The applicants submit that, in addition to financial damage, they have suffered non-material damage, inter alia, as a result of damage to their reputation and the need to defend themselves against accusations that proved to be incorrect and imaginary.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/20

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-437/16)

(2016/C 371/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of 86 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5 and AD 7) in the field of audit, published in volume C 171 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for drawing up a reserve list of 86 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5 and AD 7) in the field of audit, published in volume C 171 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 May 2016;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.






  — | The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court in Case C-566/10 P, which states that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit to English, French and German the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

—

The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court in Case C-566/10 P, which states that it is unlawful for notices of European Union open competitions to limit to English, French and German the languages which candidates can indicate as their second language.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

—

The applicant argues in that regard that, by limiting to three the number of languages which may be eligible as the second language of candidates in European Union open competitions, the Commission has in practice established a new rule in relation to the languages of the institutions, thereby encroaching upon the Council’s exclusive competence in that area.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6(3) TEU, Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6), the second paragraph of Article 27, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the linguistic restriction imposed by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit a body from imposing on EU citizens or officials of the institutions linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit a body from introducing such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has frustrated EU citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that, by restricting, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language to three, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes a decisive factor.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the Commission has infringed the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language, and has created further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 and paragraph 4 of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that, by making it compulsory for applications to be submitted in English, French or German and for any communications sent to candidates by EPSO regarding developments in the competition to be written in one of those languages, the Commission has infringed the right of EU citizens to interact with the institutions in their own language, and has created further discrimination against those citizens not having a thorough knowledge of those three languages.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), infringement of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.






  — | The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), infringement of the principle of proportionality, and misrepresentation of the facts.

—

The applicant argues in that regard that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable of communication within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That reasoning misrepresents the facts because those three languages are not the languages used most often for the purposes of communicating between different linguistic groups within the institutions; it is also a disproportionate restriction of the fundamental right not to suffer linguistic discrimination.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/21

---

Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-443/16)

(2016/C 371/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul notices of open competition EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests before the General Court the notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/323/16 and EPSO/AD/324/16 to draw up reserve lists with, respectively, 40 places to fill vacant Administrator posts (AD 7) for the profile — Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods; and 10 places for Administrator posts (AD 9) for the profile — Investigators: Team leaders, published in the
  Official Journal of the European Union of 26 May 2016, No C 187 A.

The same competition notices are the subject of Case T-401/16, Spain v Commission.

The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case.

The applicant alleges, in particular, infringement of Articles 18 TFEU, 24 TFEU, and 342 TFEU, and of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of proportionality and of the substantive rules inherent in the nature and purpose of notices of competition, misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation 1/58.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

---

Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament

(Case T-446/16 P)

(2016/C 371/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General 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 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament), with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament), with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs;

| — | accordingly, recognise the non-contractual liability of the European Parliament for the errors committed in the management of the appellant’s reserve list and the obligation to pay compensation for the loss suffered as a result; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, recognise the non-contractual liability of the European Parliament for the errors committed in the management of the appellant’s reserve list and the obligation to pay compensation for the loss suffered as a result;

| — | accordingly, rule in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant in her application at first instance, |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, rule in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant in her application at first instance,

| — | consequently, order:






  — | The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament) is set aside with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, order:

—

The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament) is set aside with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs.

| — | The European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 749 449,03 by way of compensation for material loss, evaluated for the period from December 2003 to December 2011, plus pensions funds, and for the subsequent period until the legal retirement age, at the monthly net payment amounts corresponding to the salaries fixed for officials in function group AD from grade AD 9 step 2, second year, taking account of the normal career of an official of that grade, supplemented by the corresponding contributions to the sickness fund, all to be increased by late-payment interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two points. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 749 449,03 by way of compensation for material loss, evaluated for the period from December 2003 to December 2011, plus pensions funds, and for the subsequent period until the legal retirement age, at the monthly net payment amounts corresponding to the salaries fixed for officials in function group AD from grade AD 9 step 2, second year, taking account of the normal career of an official of that grade, supplemented by the corresponding contributions to the sickness fund, all to be increased by late-payment interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two points.

| — | In addition, the European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for non-material loss. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for non-material loss.

| — | The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds.

| 1. | First ground, alleging an error of law based on the plea of inadmissibility of further offers of evidence;






  — | distortion of the facts, failure to give reasons, breach of the requirement of impartiality and of the right to a fair trial (second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), infringement of the principle nemo potest venire contra factum proprium and distortion of the facts on the so-called late presentation of further offers of evidence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First ground, alleging an error of law based on the plea of inadmissibility of further offers of evidence;

—

distortion of the facts, failure to give reasons, breach of the requirement of impartiality and of the right to a fair trial (second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), infringement of the principle nemo potest venire contra factum proprium and distortion of the facts on the so-called late presentation of further offers of evidence;

| — | failure to acknowledge the breach of the obligation of transparency and of sincere cooperation of the Parliament towards the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to acknowledge the breach of the obligation of transparency and of sincere cooperation of the Parliament towards the General Court;

| — | manifest error of assessment of the change of numbering of the reserve list from EUR/A/151/98 to EUR/A/151. |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest error of assessment of the change of numbering of the reserve list from EUR/A/151/98 to EUR/A/151.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging an error of law in the absence of legal classification of and reasons for the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005 and failure to comply with the annulling judgment of the General Court of the European Union;






  — | absence of legal classification of the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging an error of law in the absence of legal classification of and reasons for the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005 and failure to comply with the annulling judgment of the General Court of the European Union;

—

absence of legal classification of the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005;

| — | failure to comply with annulling judgment T-457/13 P. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with annulling judgment T-457/13 P.

| 3. | Third ground, alleging distortion of the facts as to the mail of EPSO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground, alleging distortion of the facts as to the mail of EPSO.

| 4. | Fourth ground, alleging distortion of the content of the letter of 15 October 2007 of the Parliament in relation to the allegation that the appellant was informed as to the destruction of her competition file. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground, alleging distortion of the content of the letter of 15 October 2007 of the Parliament in relation to the allegation that the appellant was informed as to the destruction of her competition file.

| 5. | Fifth ground, alleging an error of law as regards the legal classification of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2003. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground, alleging an error of law as regards the legal classification of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2003.

| 6. | Sixth ground, alleging failure to comply with the annulling judgment in relation to the calculation of loss. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground, alleging failure to comply with the annulling judgment in relation to the calculation of loss.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

---

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)

(Case T-453/16)

(2016/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 520 Barcode Ellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘5 201000 603856 520Barcode Hellas’ — Application for registration No 10 881 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 238/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

---

Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission

(Case T-464/16 P)

(2016/C 371/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HI (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds.

| 1. | First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence.

| 3. | Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST.

| 4. | Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

---

Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case T-465/16)

(2016/C 371/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, J. C. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica OPTIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 479

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13/06/2016 in Case R 229/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the proposed evidence admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the proposed evidence admissible;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

---

Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB

(Case T-466/16)

(2016/C 371/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision concerning the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31 December 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision concerning the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31 December 2016;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)

  The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which, in accordance with those legislative acts, are to be interpreted as meaning that they also give preference to auxiliary development business. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which, in accordance with those legislative acts, are to be interpreted as meaning that they also give preference to auxiliary development business.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.
  In this regard, the applicant argues that if an interpretation of the implementing regulations in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not possible, the implementing regulations are, in that respect, unlawful. Consequently, the defendant’s decision based on those implementing regulations is also unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.

In this regard, the applicant argues that if an interpretation of the implementing regulations in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not possible, the implementing regulations are, in that respect, unlawful. Consequently, the defendant’s decision based on those implementing regulations is also unlawful.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/26

---

Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission

(Case T-468/16)

(2016/C 371/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verein Deutsche Sprache eV (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General in the name of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 10 June 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General in the name of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 10 June 2016;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(3) TEU, Article 11(2) TEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) — no open and transparent dialogue






  — | The applicant claims that the decision disregards the applicant’s unmistakeable intention in the application for access to documents to gain a comprehensive insight in the process which led to the decision on the redesigning of the press room in the Commission’s Berlaymont building with a reduction of languages to English and French. Only a few documents were produced that mainly included formalities but did not give information about the author and reasons of the decision.
  The Commission does not, in the contested decision, go into details on the document sources referred to by the applicant, keeps the reasons for the refusal of access private and thereby infringes the duty arising from Article 10(3) TEU and further EU legislation to take decisions as openly and as closely to the citizen as possible and to explain the reasons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 10(3) TEU, Article 11(2) TEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) — no open and transparent dialogue

—

The applicant claims that the decision disregards the applicant’s unmistakeable intention in the application for access to documents to gain a comprehensive insight in the process which led to the decision on the redesigning of the press room in the Commission’s Berlaymont building with a reduction of languages to English and French. Only a few documents were produced that mainly included formalities but did not give information about the author and reasons of the decision.

The Commission does not, in the contested decision, go into details on the document sources referred to by the applicant, keeps the reasons for the refusal of access private and thereby infringes the duty arising from Article 10(3) TEU and further EU legislation to take decisions as openly and as closely to the citizen as possible and to explain the reasons.

| — | The applicant further claims that the Commission fails to comply with its obligation under Article 11(2) TEU to maintain an open and transparent dialogue with representative associations, inasmuch as it ignores the association’s concerns, fails to make documents available and provides insufficient information on its reasons for withholding documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that the Commission fails to comply with its obligation under Article 11(2) TEU to maintain an open and transparent dialogue with representative associations, inasmuch as it ignores the association’s concerns, fails to make documents available and provides insufficient information on its reasons for withholding documents.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — partially refused access to documents






  — | In the context of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the non-observance of essential parts of the application infringes the EU principle of transparency. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — partially refused access to documents

—

In the context of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the non-observance of essential parts of the application infringes the EU principle of transparency.

| — | The applicant further claims that the Commission, in its decision, incorrectly decided that a particular document could not be made available on grounds of data protection, without specifying that document or describing the content and without providing adequate reasons for that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that the Commission, in its decision, incorrectly decided that a particular document could not be made available on grounds of data protection, without specifying that document or describing the content and without providing adequate reasons for that decision.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/28

---

Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Société wallonne des aéroports v Commission

(Case T-474/16)

(2016/C 371/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (SOWEAR) (Namur, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its request to join the present case with Case T-818/14 admissible and well-founded;

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

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded,

and consequently,

| — | annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 No SA.14093 concerning the measures implemented by Belgium in favour of Brussels South Charleroi Airport and Ryanair;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in classifying the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the runway lighting service as equipment and services of an economic nature.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reasoning used to establish the annual market fee to be paid by BSCA is based on an incorrect calculation method and factors having a substantial impact on the amount of the aid and is moreover vitiated by a clear failure to give reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law, first, by including, in the amount of the fee to be recovered from BSCA the aid granted in respect of the safety task (namely, the fire and maintenance subsidy) and, secondly, by not taking into consideration the fire and maintenance subsidy in 2014 and 2015.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

---

Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-39/16)

(2016/C 371/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and ISPRA and order for the defendant to pay damages and interest for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered of an amount of EUR 10 000.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

---

Action brought on 11 August 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-41/16)

(2016/C 371/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Meyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment or setting aside of the appointing authority’s decisions to reclaim the education allowances allegedly unjustifiably received by the applicant and to refuse the applicant further additional education allowances and an order that the defendant shall repay the deductions.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

| — | order the defendant to repay the unjust deductions on the basis of that decision to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to repay the unjust deductions on the basis of that decision to the applicant;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Action brought on 12 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-42/16)

(2016/C 371/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the application for compensation made by the applicant in respect of the harm which he alleges he has suffered since November 2013.

Form of order sought

| (1) | Order the EIB to pay the applicant a sum equal to eight times his annual salary on the basis of Article 33a of the Staff Regulations and Article 9.1.1 of the Administrative provisions applicable to the staff; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Order the EIB to pay the applicant a sum equal to eight times his annual salary on the basis of Article 33a of the Staff Regulations and Article 9.1.1 of the Administrative provisions applicable to the staff;

| (2) | Annul the decision of the EIB of 4 June 2015 closing the applicant’s Optional Supplementary Provident Scheme (OSPS) account with effect from 28 February 2015 and order the EIB to pay the applicant:






  — | a sum equivalent to the payments which the EIB would have continued to make into the applicant’s OSPS account (3 % of the applicant’s annual salary) if the EIB had not closed his account, with effect from 28 February 2015 until the date of actual reopening of the applicant’s OSPS account; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

Annul the decision of the EIB of 4 June 2015 closing the applicant’s Optional Supplementary Provident Scheme (OSPS) account with effect from 28 February 2015 and order the EIB to pay the applicant:

—

a sum equivalent to the payments which the EIB would have continued to make into the applicant’s OSPS account (3 % of the applicant’s annual salary) if the EIB had not closed his account, with effect from 28 February 2015 until the date of actual reopening of the applicant’s OSPS account;

| — | the interest which the capital in the applicant’s OSPS account would have continued to earn if his OSPS account had not been closed on 28 February 2015 and if the applicant and the EIB had been able to continue to make their respective payments up to 3 % of the applicant’s annual salary until the date of actual reopening of the applicant’s OSPS account; |
| --- | --- |

—

the interest which the capital in the applicant’s OSPS account would have continued to earn if his OSPS account had not been closed on 28 February 2015 and if the applicant and the EIB had been able to continue to make their respective payments up to 3 % of the applicant’s annual salary until the date of actual reopening of the applicant’s OSPS account;

| (3) | Order the EIB to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Order the EIB to pay damages assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered;

| (4) | Order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Order the EIB to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/31

---

Action brought on 18 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-43/16)

(2016/C 371/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision excluding the applicant from the competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 because he failed to inform EPSO of his family connection to a member of the selection board of that competition.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 19 May 2016, taken in response to the request for re-examination made by the applicant on 5 November 2015, by which the president of the selection board of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 confirmed the decision to exclude him from that competition and, if necessary, the decision rejecting the appeal and the initial decision;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/31

---

Action brought on 19 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-44/16)

(2016/C 371/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AST-SC/01/14 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition by the fact that she does not fulfill the conditions relating to the diploma and professional experience which are required to be included on it.

Forms of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 18 February 2015 informing her that her application for the role of secretary (No EPSO/ASTSC/01/14) was rejected because of the fact that the applicant was not in possession of the diploma and professional experience giving her access to the competition concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 18 February 2015 informing her that her application for the role of secretary (No EPSO/ASTSC/01/14) was rejected because of the fact that the applicant was not in possession of the diploma and professional experience giving her access to the competition concerned;

| — | annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 17 September 2015 informing her of the rejection of her application for review and confirming the decision of 18 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of Unit of EPSO’s Selection Committee of 17 September 2015 informing her of the rejection of her application for review and confirming the decision of 18 February 2015;

| — | annul, as far as necessary, the specific reply rejecting the complaint of 12 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, as far as necessary, the specific reply rejecting the complaint of 12 May 2016;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/32

---

Action brought on 17 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-45/16)

(2016/C 371/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material loss that the applicant maintains he has suffered following the declaration of his total and permanent invalidity, which he regards as being of occupational origin.

Form of order sought

Compensate the applicant for the loss or for part of the loss in the case in which part of the loss would have been reimbursed by the EIB's AXA Belgium insurance.

| — | Damages in relation to the violation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Damages in relation to the violation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150 000;

| — | Reimbursement of future medical and psychological costs related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress of the applicant, and which is not reimbursed by the EIB Health Insurance Scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reimbursement of future medical and psychological costs related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress of the applicant, and which is not reimbursed by the EIB Health Insurance Scheme;

| — | Reimbursement of medical and psychological costs to date related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress, and which is not reimbursed by the IB Health Insurance Scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reimbursement of medical and psychological costs to date related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress, and which is not reimbursed by the IB Health Insurance Scheme;

| — | Repayment of the applicant’s legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 30 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

Repayment of the applicant’s legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 30 000.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/32

---

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-46/16)

(2016/C 371/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission executing a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal insofar as it refuses to appoint the applicant as an official to the post in which it had already refused to appoint her and which was the subject matter of the decision annulled by that judgment.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 27 October 2015 by which the Human Resources DG of the European Commission adopted implementing measures in respect of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015, F-119/14 FE v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 27 October 2015 by which the Human Resources DG of the European Commission adopted implementing measures in respect of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015, F-119/14 FE v Commission;

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 May 2016 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the claim made by the applicant against the abovementioned decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 May 2016 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the claim made by the applicant against the abovementioned decision;

| — | Order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm, that amount being set provisionally; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm, that amount being set provisionally;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/33

---

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-47/16)

(2016/C 371/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The application to annul the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2015 annul promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

| — | annul AIPN’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2015 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul AIPN’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2015 promotion exercise;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/33

---

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-48/16)

(2016/C 371/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Abiks, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision establishing the number of annuities granted in the EU pension scheme following a request to transfer pension rights and compensation for the damage caused to the applicant owing to the failure of the defendant to respect a reasonable time-limit in processing this request.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 6 November 2015 by which the Appointing Authority took the final decision to fix the amount transferred to the EU Pension Scheme at EUR 135 955,38 instead of EUR 155 237,25; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 6 November 2015 by which the Appointing Authority took the final decision to fix the amount transferred to the EU Pension Scheme at EUR 135 955,38 instead of EUR 155 237,25;

| — | Order the defendant to compensate the loss of EUR 10 739,28 incurred to the applicant as a result of the breach of sound administration by the Commission services; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to compensate the loss of EUR 10 739,28 incurred to the applicant as a result of the breach of sound administration by the Commission services;

| — | Order the defendant to pay compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 1 000 — to the applicant for the moral damages suffered as a result of the final contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 1 000 — to the applicant for the moral damages suffered as a result of the final contested decision;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission

(Case F-85/12) (1)

(2016/C 371/40)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29/9/2012, p. 35.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission

(Case F-18/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/41)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20/4/2013, p. 47.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission

(Case F-19/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/42)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27/4/2013, p. 30.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Hoeve v Commission

(Case F-57/13) (1)

(2016/C 371/43)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3/8/2013, p. 27.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission

(Case F-70/14) (1)

(2016/C 371/44)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3/11/2014, p. 28.

---

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission

(Case F-128/15) (1)

(2016/C 371/45)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 43.

---