# Official Journal C 156/2 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 156 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 592 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 156

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 592 May 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 156/01 | 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 156/01

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 156/02 | Case C-12/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 46b — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 54 — Old-age pensions — Rules against overlapping — Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State — Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension) | 2 |
| 2016/C 156/03 | Case C-94/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Articles 17 and 20 — Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment — Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay) | 3 |
| 2016/C 156/04 | Case C-232/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Validity — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Product concerned — Product under consideration — Obligation to state reasons) | 4 |
| 2016/C 156/05 | Case C-235/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Safe Interenvíos SA v Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Customer due diligence measures — Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market) | 4 |
| 2016/C 156/06 | Case C-247/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application) | 6 |
| 2016/C 156/07 | Case C-248/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application) | 6 |
| 2016/C 156/08 | Case C-267/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application) | 7 |
| 2016/C 156/09 | Case C-268/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application) | 7 |
| 2016/C 156/10 | Case C-286/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Article 290 TFEU — Concepts of amending and supplementing — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 — Article 21(3) — Scope of the power conferred on the European Commission — Need to adopt a separate legislative act — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014) | 8 |
| 2016/C 156/11 | Case C-431/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of evidence) | 9 |
| 2016/C 156/12 | Case C-440/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal basis — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran) | 9 |
| 2016/C 156/13 | Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14) and Amira Osso v Region Hannover (C-444/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 — Articles 23 and 26 — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2011/95/EU — Rules relating to the content of international protection — Subsidiary protection status — Article 29 — Social welfare — Conditions of access — Article 33 — Freedom of movement within the host Member State — Definition — Restriction — Obligation to reside in a particular place — Different treatment — Comparable situations — Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities — Grounds of migration or integration policy) | 10 |
| 2016/C 156/14 | Case C-472/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Extent of harmonised field — Registration of chemical substances with the European Chemicals Agency before placing them on the market — Article 5 — National chemical product register — Notification requirement for registration purposes — Compatibility with the REACH Regulation — Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU — Quantitative restriction on imports) | 11 |
| 2016/C 156/15 | Case C-499/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Interpretation — General Rules — Rule 3(b) — Definition of goods put up in sets for retail sale — Separate packages) | 12 |
| 2016/C 156/16 | Case C-26/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Common organisation of agricultural markets — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I — Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors — Citrus fruits — Conditions for marketing — Provisions concerning marking — Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing) | 12 |
| 2016/C 156/17 | Case C-38/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Collection and treatment systems — Discharges in sensitive areas — Monitoring methods — Collecting of samples) | 13 |
| 2016/C 156/18 | Case C-40/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemption for insurance — Definition of insurance transactions and of related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer) | 13 |
| 2016/C 156/19 | Case C-84/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 — Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound) | 14 |
| 2016/C 156/20 | Case C-99/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13(1) — Audiovisual work — Infringing activity — Damages — Rules for calculation — Lump sum — Moral prejudice — Inclusion) | 15 |
| 2016/C 156/21 | Case C-112/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls — Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries) | 15 |
| 2016/C 156/22 | Case C-138/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission (Appeal — Orphan medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 — Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib mesylate) | 16 |
| 2016/C 156/23 | Case C-144/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 2304, 2308 and 2309 — Classification of a soya protein concentrate) | 17 |
| 2016/C 156/24 | Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours — Article 16 — National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Powers — Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger) | 17 |
| 2016/C 156/25 | Case C-161/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision withdrawing residence authorisation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law — Plea based on public policy) | 18 |
| 2016/C 156/26 | Case C-175/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Refusal — Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country — Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection — Applicable rules on jurisdiction) | 19 |
| 2016/C 156/27 | Case C-179/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft. (References for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet — Unauthorised use of the mark — Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party — Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party) | 19 |
| 2016/C 156/28 | Case C-252/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Article 51(1)(a) — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75) | 20 |
| 2016/C 156/29 | Case C-695/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 3(3) — Right of Member States to send an applicant to a safe third country — Article 18 — Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back — Directive 2013/32/EU — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Examination of an application for international protection) | 21 |
| 2016/C 156/30 | Case C-28/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága | 21 |
| 2016/C 156/31 | Case C-54/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2016 — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA | 22 |
| 2016/C 156/32 | Case C-64/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas | 23 |
| 2016/C 156/33 | Case C-75/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa | 24 |
| 2016/C 156/34 | Case C-78/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Giovanni Pesce and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile and Others | 25 |
| 2016/C 156/35 | Case C-79/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Cesare Serinelli and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others | 26 |
| 2016/C 156/36 | Case C-92/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza | 27 |
| 2016/C 156/37 | Case C-93/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L. | 28 |
| 2016/C 156/38 | Case C-97/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) | 29 |
| 2016/C 156/39 | Case C-108/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki | 29 |
| 2016/C 156/40 | Case C-109/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas | 30 |
| 2016/C 156/41 | Case C-128/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission | 31 |
| | General Court |
| 2016/C 156/42 | Case T-501/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Karl-May-Verlag v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark WINNETOU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Principles of autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark — Obligation to state reasons) | 33 |
| 2016/C 156/43 | Case T-645/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark E — Earlier Community figurative mark E — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 33 |
| 2016/C 156/44 | Case T-103/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Excise duties — Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Rights of the defence — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Private creditor test — Burden of proof) | 34 |
| 2016/C 156/45 | Case T-201/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 35 |
| 2016/C 156/46 | Case T-586/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Market Economy Treatment (MET) — Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system — Tax incentives) | 36 |
| 2016/C 156/47 | Case T-785/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MOTORTOWN — Earlier international figurative mark M MOTOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 36 |
| 2016/C 156/48 | Case T-792/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius — Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations) | 37 |
| 2016/C 156/49 | Case T-817/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Combating avian influenza — Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU — Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 — Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals — Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion — Proportionality — Duty of care — Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) | 38 |
| 2016/C 156/50 | Case T-33/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BIMBO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 38 |
| 2016/C 156/51 | Case T-45/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission (Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Errors of assessment — Force majeure) | 39 |
| 2016/C 156/52 | Case T-78/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark IPVanish — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 40 |
| 2016/C 156/53 | Case T-90/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SCOPE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 40 |
| 2016/C 156/54 | Case T-100/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Dextro Energy v European Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health — Refusal to authorise certain claims despite the positive opinion of the EFSA — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons) | 41 |
| 2016/C 156/55 | Case T-363/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 42 |
| 2016/C 156/56 | Case T-575/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 42 |
| 2016/C 156/57 | Case T-576/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2016/C 156/58 | Case T-840/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2016/C 156/59 | Case T-94/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission (Action for annulment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — No prorogation of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Lack of locus standi — Inadmissibility) | 44 |
| 2016/C 156/60 | Case T-436/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Request to modify the form of order sought — Inadmissibility) | 45 |
| 2016/C 156/61 | Case T-437/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 45 |
| 2016/C 156/62 | Case T-438/15: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission (State aid — Corporation tax — Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium — Commission letter informing the Member State of its preliminary assessment of that aid as being incompatible with the internal market and of the likely adoption of appropriate measures — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 46 |
| 2016/C 156/63 | Case T-439/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility) | 47 |
| 2016/C 156/64 | Case T-490/15: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM — StoryDOCKS (tolino) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) | 47 |
| 2016/C 156/65 | Case T-87/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurofast v Commission (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted — Debit note — Set-off — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency) | 48 |
| 2016/C 156/66 | Case T-4/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit) | 49 |
| 2016/C 156/67 | Case T-63/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — E-Control v ACER | 49 |
| 2016/C 156/68 | Case T-81/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre) | 51 |
| 2016/C 156/69 | Case T-90/16: Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices) | 51 |
| 2016/C 156/70 | Case T-95/16: Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL) | 52 |
| 2016/C 156/71 | Case T-96/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.) | 53 |
| 2016/C 156/72 | Case T-103/16: Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus) | 53 |
| 2016/C 156/73 | Case T-692/13: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2016 — SACBO v INEA | 54 |
| 2016/C 156/74 | Case T-275/15: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council | 54 |
| 2016/C 156/75 | Case T-569/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME | 54 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2016/C 156/76 | Case F-2/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Change in the place of residence — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 55 |
| 2016/C 156/77 | Case F-23/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016 — Kerstens v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Obligations — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Disciplinary procedure — Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts — Reprimand — Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Consequences of the irregularity) | 55 |
| 2016/C 156/78 | Case F-109/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament | 56 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2016/C 156/02

Case C-12/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 46b — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 54 — Old-age pensions — Rules against overlapping — Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State — Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension)

2

2016/C 156/03

Case C-94/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Articles 17 and 20 — Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment — Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay)

3

2016/C 156/04

Case C-232/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Validity — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Product concerned — Product under consideration — Obligation to state reasons)

4

2016/C 156/05

Case C-235/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Safe Interenvíos SA v Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Customer due diligence measures — Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market)

4

2016/C 156/06

Case C-247/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

6

2016/C 156/07

Case C-248/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

6

2016/C 156/08

Case C-267/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

7

2016/C 156/09

Case C-268/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for cement and related products — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

7

2016/C 156/10

Case C-286/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Article 290 TFEU — Concepts of amending and supplementing — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 — Article 21(3) — Scope of the power conferred on the European Commission — Need to adopt a separate legislative act — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014)

8

2016/C 156/11

Case C-431/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of evidence)

9

2016/C 156/12

Case C-440/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal basis — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran)

9

2016/C 156/13

Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14) and Amira Osso v Region Hannover (C-444/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 — Articles 23 and 26 — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2011/95/EU — Rules relating to the content of international protection — Subsidiary protection status — Article 29 — Social welfare — Conditions of access — Article 33 — Freedom of movement within the host Member State — Definition — Restriction — Obligation to reside in a particular place — Different treatment — Comparable situations — Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities — Grounds of migration or integration policy)

10

2016/C 156/14

Case C-472/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Extent of harmonised field — Registration of chemical substances with the European Chemicals Agency before placing them on the market — Article 5 — National chemical product register — Notification requirement for registration purposes — Compatibility with the REACH Regulation — Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU — Quantitative restriction on imports)

11

2016/C 156/15

Case C-499/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Interpretation — General Rules — Rule 3(b) — Definition of goods put up in sets for retail sale — Separate packages)

12

2016/C 156/16

Case C-26/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Common organisation of agricultural markets — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I — Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors — Citrus fruits — Conditions for marketing — Provisions concerning marking — Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing)

12

2016/C 156/17

Case C-38/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Collection and treatment systems — Discharges in sensitive areas — Monitoring methods — Collecting of samples)

13

2016/C 156/18

Case C-40/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemption for insurance — Definition of insurance transactions and of related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer)

13

2016/C 156/19

Case C-84/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 — Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound)

14

2016/C 156/20

Case C-99/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13(1) — Audiovisual work — Infringing activity — Damages — Rules for calculation — Lump sum — Moral prejudice — Inclusion)

15

2016/C 156/21

Case C-112/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls — Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries)

15

2016/C 156/22

Case C-138/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission (Appeal — Orphan medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 — Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product imatinib mesylate)

16

2016/C 156/23

Case C-144/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 2304, 2308 and 2309 — Classification of a soya protein concentrate)

17

2016/C 156/24

Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7 — Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours — Article 16 — National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation — Powers — Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger)

17

2016/C 156/25

Case C-161/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision withdrawing residence authorisation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law — Plea based on public policy)

18

2016/C 156/26

Case C-175/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Refusal — Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country — Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection — Applicable rules on jurisdiction)

19

2016/C 156/27

Case C-179/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft. (References for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet — Unauthorised use of the mark — Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party — Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party)

19

2016/C 156/28

Case C-252/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Article 51(1)(a) — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75)

20

2016/C 156/29

Case C-695/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 3(3) — Right of Member States to send an applicant to a safe third country — Article 18 — Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back — Directive 2013/32/EU — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Examination of an application for international protection)

21

2016/C 156/30

Case C-28/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

21

2016/C 156/31

Case C-54/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2016 — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

22

2016/C 156/32

Case C-64/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

23

2016/C 156/33

Case C-75/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

24

2016/C 156/34

Case C-78/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Giovanni Pesce and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile and Others

25

2016/C 156/35

Case C-79/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Cesare Serinelli and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

26

2016/C 156/36

Case C-92/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

27

2016/C 156/37

Case C-93/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.

28

2016/C 156/38

Case C-97/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

29

2016/C 156/39

Case C-108/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki

29

2016/C 156/40

Case C-109/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas

30

2016/C 156/41

Case C-128/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

Spain and Others

Commission

31

General Court

2016/C 156/42

Case T-501/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Karl-May-Verlag v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark WINNETOU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Principles of autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark — Obligation to state reasons)

33

2016/C 156/43

Case T-645/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark E — Earlier Community figurative mark E — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

33

2016/C 156/44

Case T-103/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Excise duties — Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Rights of the defence — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Private creditor test — Burden of proof)

34

2016/C 156/45

Case T-201/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

35

2016/C 156/46

Case T-586/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (Dumping — Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Market Economy Treatment (MET) — Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system — Tax incentives)

36

2016/C 156/47

Case T-785/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MOTORTOWN — Earlier international figurative mark M MOTOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

36

2016/C 156/48

Case T-792/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius — Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

37

2016/C 156/49

Case T-817/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Health policy — Combating avian influenza — Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU — Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 — Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals — Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion — Proportionality — Duty of care — Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others

Commission

38

2016/C 156/50

Case T-33/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BIMBO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

38

2016/C 156/51

Case T-45/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission (Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Errors of assessment — Force majeure)

39

2016/C 156/52

Case T-78/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark IPVanish — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

40

2016/C 156/53

Case T-90/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SCOPE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

40

2016/C 156/54

Case T-100/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Dextro Energy v European Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health — Refusal to authorise certain claims despite the positive opinion of the EFSA — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons)

Dextro Energy

European Commission

41

2016/C 156/55

Case T-363/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

42

2016/C 156/56

Case T-575/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

42

2016/C 156/57

Case T-576/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

43

2016/C 156/58

Case T-840/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility)

43

2016/C 156/59

Case T-94/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission (Action for annulment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — No prorogation of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Lack of locus standi — Inadmissibility)

44

2016/C 156/60

Case T-436/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Request to modify the form of order sought — Inadmissibility)

45

2016/C 156/61

Case T-437/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

45

2016/C 156/62

Case T-438/15: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission (State aid — Corporation tax — Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium — Commission letter informing the Member State of its preliminary assessment of that aid as being incompatible with the internal market and of the likely adoption of appropriate measures — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

46

2016/C 156/63

Case T-439/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

47

2016/C 156/64

Case T-490/15: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM — StoryDOCKS (tolino) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

47

2016/C 156/65

Case T-87/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurofast v Commission (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted — Debit note — Set-off — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

48

2016/C 156/66

Case T-4/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)

49

2016/C 156/67

Case T-63/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — E-Control v ACER

49

2016/C 156/68

Case T-81/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)

51

2016/C 156/69

Case T-90/16: Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

51

2016/C 156/70

Case T-95/16: Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

52

2016/C 156/71

Case T-96/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

53

2016/C 156/72

Case T-103/16: Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)

53

2016/C 156/73

Case T-692/13: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2016 — SACBO v INEA

54

2016/C 156/74

Case T-275/15: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council

54

2016/C 156/75

Case T-569/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME

54

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2016/C 156/76

Case F-2/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Change in the place of residence — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Unlimited jurisdiction)

55

2016/C 156/77

Case F-23/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016 — Kerstens v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Obligations — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Disciplinary procedure — Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts — Reprimand — Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Consequences of the irregularity)

55

2016/C 156/78

Case F-109/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament

56

---

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/1

---

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

(2016/C 156/01)

Last publication

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

Past publications

OJ C 136, 18.4.2016

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016

OJ C 90, 7.3.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-12/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 46b - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 54 - Old-age pensions - Rules against overlapping - Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State - Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension))

(2016/C 156/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Hesse, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-94/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Articles 17 and 20 - Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment - Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay))

(2016/C 156/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a court is seised of a procedure, such as that in the main proceedings, concerning the designation of the court of the Member State of origin of a European order for payment having territorial jurisdiction and examines, in those circumstances, the international jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State to hear the contentious proceedings concerning the debt which gave rise to such an order for payment, against which the defendant has entered a statement of opposition within the time-limit prescribed for that purpose:

| — | since Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure does not provide any indications as to the powers and obligations of that court, those procedural questions continue, pursuant to Article 26 of that regulation, to be governed by the national law of that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

since Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure does not provide any indications as to the powers and obligations of that court, those procedural questions continue, pursuant to Article 26 of that regulation, to be governed by the national law of that Member State;

| — | Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters requires the question of the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment to be decided by application of procedural rules which enable the effectiveness of the provisions of that regulation and the rights of the defence to be guaranteed, whether it is the referring court or a court which the referring court designates as the court having territorial and substantive jurisdiction to hear a claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings under the ordinary civil procedure which rules on that question; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters requires the question of the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment to be decided by application of procedural rules which enable the effectiveness of the provisions of that regulation and the rights of the defence to be guaranteed, whether it is the referring court or a court which the referring court designates as the court having territorial and substantive jurisdiction to hear a claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings under the ordinary civil procedure which rules on that question;

| — | if a court such as the referring court rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment and finds that there is such jurisdiction in the light of the criteria set out in Regulation No 44/2001, that regulation and Regulation No 1896/2006 require such a court to interpret national law in such a way that it permits it to identify or designate a court having territorial or substantive jurisdiction to hear that procedure, and, |
| --- | --- |

—

if a court such as the referring court rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment and finds that there is such jurisdiction in the light of the criteria set out in Regulation No 44/2001, that regulation and Regulation No 1896/2006 require such a court to interpret national law in such a way that it permits it to identify or designate a court having territorial or substantive jurisdiction to hear that procedure, and,

| — | if a court such as the referring court finds that there is no such international jurisdiction, that court is not required of its own motion to review that order for payment by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

if a court such as the referring court finds that there is no such international jurisdiction, that court is not required of its own motion to review that order for payment by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-232/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Validity - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Product concerned - Product under consideration - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 156/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Safe Interenvíos SA v Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

(Case C-235/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Customer due diligence measures - Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market))

(2016/C 156/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safe Interenvíos SA

Defendants: Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 5, 7, 11(1) and 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, authorises the application of standard customer due diligence measures in so far as the customers are financial institutions whose compliance with due diligence measures is supervised when there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 7(c) of that directive and, secondly, requires the institutions and persons covered by the directive to apply, on a risk-sensitive basis, enhanced customer due diligence measures in situations which by their nature can present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the directive, such as that of the transfer of funds.
  Furthermore, even in the absence of such a suspicion or such a risk, Article 5 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 allows the Member States to adopt or retain in force stricter provisions where those provisions seek to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 5, 7, 11(1) and 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, authorises the application of standard customer due diligence measures in so far as the customers are financial institutions whose compliance with due diligence measures is supervised when there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 7(c) of that directive and, secondly, requires the institutions and persons covered by the directive to apply, on a risk-sensitive basis, enhanced customer due diligence measures in situations which by their nature can present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the directive, such as that of the transfer of funds.

Furthermore, even in the absence of such a suspicion or such a risk, Article 5 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 allows the Member States to adopt or retain in force stricter provisions where those provisions seek to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

| 2. | Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the institutions and persons covered by that directive may not compromise the task of supervising payment institutions with which the competent authorities are entrusted pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, and may not take the place of those authorities. Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, whilst a financial institution may, in performing the supervisory obligation which it owes in respect of its customers, take account of the due diligence measures applied by a payment institution in respect of its own customers, all the due diligence measures that it adopts must be appropriate to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the institutions and persons covered by that directive may not compromise the task of supervising payment institutions with which the competent authorities are entrusted pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, and may not take the place of those authorities. Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, whilst a financial institution may, in performing the supervisory obligation which it owes in respect of its customers, take account of the due diligence measures applied by a payment institution in respect of its own customers, all the due diligence measures that it adopts must be appropriate to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

| 3. | Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted pursuant either to the discretion which Article 13 of that directive grants the Member States or to the power in Article 5 of the directive, must be compatible with EU law, in particular the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties. Whilst such national legislation designed to combat money laundering or terrorist financing pursues a legitimate aim capable of justifying a restriction on the fundamental freedoms and whilst to presume that transfers of funds by an institution covered by that directive to States other than the State in which it is established always present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is appropriate for securing the attainment of that aim, that legislation exceeds, however, what is necessary for the purpose of achieving the aim which it pursues, since the presumption which it establishes applies to any transfer of funds, without providing for the possibility of rebutting the presumption in the case of transfers of funds not objectively presenting such a risk. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted pursuant either to the discretion which Article 13 of that directive grants the Member States or to the power in Article 5 of the directive, must be compatible with EU law, in particular the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties. Whilst such national legislation designed to combat money laundering or terrorist financing pursues a legitimate aim capable of justifying a restriction on the fundamental freedoms and whilst to presume that transfers of funds by an institution covered by that directive to States other than the State in which it is established always present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is appropriate for securing the attainment of that aim, that legislation exceeds, however, what is necessary for the purpose of achieving the aim which it pursues, since the presumption which it establishes applies to any transfer of funds, without providing for the possibility of rebutting the presumption in the case of transfers of funds not objectively presenting such a risk.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — HeidelbergCement AG v European Commission

(Case C-247/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))

(2016/C 156/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: HeidelbergCement AG (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and P. Pichler, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in HeidelbergCement v Commission (T-302/11, EU:T:2014:128); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in HeidelbergCement v Commission (T-302/11, EU:T:2014:128);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HeidelbergCement AG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-302/11 and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HeidelbergCement AG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-302/11 and the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission

(Case C-248/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))

(2016/C 156/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Schwenk Zement KG (represented by: M. Raible and S. Merz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Schwenk Zement v Commission (T-306/11, EU:T:2014:123); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Schwenk Zement v Commission (T-306/11, EU:T:2014:123);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schwenk Zement KG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-306/11 and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schwenk Zement KG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-306/11 and the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Buzzi Unicem SpA v European Commission

(Case C-267/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))

(2016/C 156/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Buzzi Unicem SpA (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro and A. Sodano, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Buzzi Unicem v Commission (T-297/11, EU:T:2014:122); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Buzzi Unicem v Commission (T-297/11, EU:T:2014:122);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2356 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2356 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Buzzi Unicem SpA with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-297/11 and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Buzzi Unicem SpA with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-297/11 and the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission

(Case C-268/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))

(2016/C 156/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italmobiliare SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and L Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by M. Malaguti, avvocatessa)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Italmobiliare v Commission (T-305/11, EU:T:2014:126); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Italmobiliare v Commission (T-305/11, EU:T:2014:126);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C (2011) 2364 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Italmobiliare SpA, both in the proceedings at first instance in Case T-305/11 and in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Italmobiliare SpA, both in the proceedings at first instance in Case T-305/11 and in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-286/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Article 290 TFEU - Concepts of ‘amending’ and ‘supplementing’ - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 - Article 21(3) - Scope of the power conferred on the European Commission - Need to adopt a separate legislative act - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014))

(2016/C 156/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, M. Konstantinidis and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Delegated Regulation No 275/2014 be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Delegated Regulation No 275/2014 be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2016 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-431/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Compensation payments made by the Greek Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) in 2008 and 2009 - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of evidence))

(2016/C 156/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, R. Sauer and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-440/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal basis - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran))

(2016/C 156/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: National Iranian Oil Company (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, D. Gauci and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14) and Amira Osso v Region Hannover (C-444/14)

(Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 - Articles 23 and 26 - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2011/95/EU - Rules relating to the content of international protection - Subsidiary protection status - Article 29 - Social welfare - Conditions of access - Article 33 - Freedom of movement within the host Member State - Definition - Restriction - Obligation to reside in a particular place - Different treatment - Comparable situations - Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities - Grounds of migration or integration policy))

(2016/C 156/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Kreis Warendorf (C-443/14), Amira Osso (C-444/14)

Respondents: Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14), Region Hannover (C-444/14)

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (C-443/14 and C-444/14)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it does not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the Member State that has granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it does not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the Member State that has granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition.

| 2. | Articles 29 and 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, for the purpose of achieving an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying those benefits among the various institutions competent in that regard, when the applicable national rules do not provide for the imposition of such a measure on refugees, third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law or nationals of that Member State in receipt of those benefits. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 29 and 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, for the purpose of achieving an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying those benefits among the various institutions competent in that regard, when the applicable national rules do not provide for the imposition of such a measure on refugees, third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law or nationals of that Member State in receipt of those benefits.

| 3. | Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as not precluding a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, from being imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, with the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the Member State that has granted that protection — when the applicable national rules do not provide for such a measure to be imposed on third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law and who are in receipt of those benefits — if beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are not in a situation that is objectively comparable, so far as that objective is concerned, with the situation of third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law, it being for the referring court to determine whether that is the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as not precluding a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, from being imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, with the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the Member State that has granted that protection — when the applicable national rules do not provide for such a measure to be imposed on third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law and who are in receipt of those benefits — if beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are not in a situation that is objectively comparable, so far as that objective is concerned, with the situation of third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law, it being for the referring court to determine whether that is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren

(Case C-472/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Extent of harmonised field - Registration of chemical substances with the European Chemicals Agency before placing them on the market - Article 5 - National chemical product register - Notification requirement for registration purposes - Compatibility with the REACH Regulation - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Quantitative restriction on imports))

(2016/C 156/14)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén

Defendant: Riksåklagaren

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires an importer of chemical products to register those products with the competent national authority when that importer is already under an obligation under that regulation to register those same products with the European Chemicals Agency, provided that that registration with the competent national authority does not constitute a pre-condition to the placing of those products on the market, it concerns information different from that required by that regulation and contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by that regulation, in particular those of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment and the free movement of such substances in the internal market, in particular, by the implementation of a system of controls of the safe management of such products in the Member State concerned and the evaluation of that management, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires an importer of chemical products to register those products with the competent national authority when that importer is already under an obligation under that regulation to register those same products with the European Chemicals Agency, provided that that registration with the competent national authority does not constitute a pre-condition to the placing of those products on the market, it concerns information different from that required by that regulation and contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by that regulation, in particular those of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment and the free movement of such substances in the internal market, in particular, by the implementation of a system of controls of the safe management of such products in the Member State concerned and the evaluation of that management, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | The combined provisions of Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the notification and registration requirement for chemical products, as provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The combined provisions of Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the notification and registration requirement for chemical products, as provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat

(Case C-499/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Interpretation - General Rules - Rule 3(b) - Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ - Separate packages))

(2016/C 156/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those in the main proceedings, which are presented for customs clearance in separate packages and are packed together only after that transaction may nevertheless be held to be ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’, within the meaning of that rule and may, therefore, come under a single tariff heading, where it is established, having regard to other objective factors, which it is for the national court to assess, that the goods belong together as a unit and are intended to be presented as such in the retail trade.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-26/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Common organisation of agricultural markets - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Fifth indent of Part D of Section VI of Part B 2 of Annex I - Fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors - Citrus fruits - Conditions for marketing - Provisions concerning marking - Indications of preserving agents or other chemical substances used in post-harvest processing))

(2016/C 156/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-38/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Collection and treatment systems - Discharges in sensitive areas - Monitoring methods - Collecting of samples))

(2016/C 156/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by, failing to provide adequately for the treatment of urban waste water discharged in sensitive areas and deriving from certain agglomerations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu and, second, Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, in relation to the agglomerations of Berga, Figueres, El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by, failing to provide adequately for the treatment of urban waste water discharged in sensitive areas and deriving from certain agglomerations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu and, second, Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, in relation to the agglomerations of Berga, Figueres, El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

(Case C-40/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption for insurance - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer))

(2016/C 156/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a third party in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not fall within the exemption laid down by that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-84/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 - Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound))

(2016/C 156/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sonos Europe BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all of the facts which it has available to it, be classified under tariff heading 8519 of that nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

(Case C-99/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13(1) - Audiovisual work - Infringing activity - Damages - Rules for calculation - Lump sum - Moral prejudice - Inclusion))

(2016/C 156/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christian Liffers

Respondents: Producciones Mandarina SL, Mediaset España Comunicación SA, formerly Gestevisión Telecinco SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as permitting a party injured by an intellectual property infringement, who claims compensation for his material damage as calculated, in accordance with heading (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive, on the basis of the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due to him if the infringer had requested his authorisation to use that right, also to claim compensation for the moral prejudice that he has suffered, as provided for under heading (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

(Case C-112/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls - Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries))

(2016/C 156/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S

Defendants: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points (1) and (2), of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when they prescribe the fees charged to food sector establishments, from including the costs connected to the compulsory basic training of official auxiliaries.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission

(Case C-138/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Orphan medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 - Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product ‘imatinib mesylate’))

(2016/C 156/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: K. Bacon QC, E. Mackenzie, Barrister, and G. Morgan, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, S. Marino and T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV

(Case C-144/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 2304, 2308 and 2309 - Classification of a soya protein concentrate))

(2016/C 156/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Customs Support Holland BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a soya protein concentrate, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comes under heading 2309 of that nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15) v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

(Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15) (1)

((Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Compensation payable to passengers in the event that their flight is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours - Article 16 - National bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation - Powers - Adoption of enforcement measures against the air carrier for payment of the compensation due to the passenger))

(2016/C 156/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen (C-145/15), J.H. Dees-Erf (C-146/15)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the body designated by each Member State pursuant to Article 16(1) of the regulation following the refusal by an air carrier to pay to the passenger the compensation provided for in Article 7(1) of the regulation, that body is not required to take enforcement action against the carrier with a view to compelling it to pay the compensation.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v État belge

(Case C-161/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision withdrawing residence authorisation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Admissibility of grounds of appeal on a point of law - Plea based on public policy))

(2016/C 156/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where, in accordance with the applicable national law, a plea alleging infringement of national law raised for the first time before the national court hearing an appeal on a point of law is admissible only if that plea is based on public policy, a plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as guaranteed by EU law, raised for the first time before that same court, must be held to be admissible if that right, as guaranteed by national law, satisfies the conditions required by national law for it to be classified as a plea based on public policy, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

(Case C-175/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Contracts imposing an obligation on a Romanian undertaking to assign trade marks to an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Refusal - Clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country - Defendant entering an appearance before the Romanian courts without raising an objection - Applicable rules on jurisdiction))

(2016/C 156/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taser International Inc.

Defendants: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the non-performance of a contractual obligation, in which the applicant has brought proceedings before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, the jurisdiction of those courts may stem from Article 24 of that regulation, where the defendant does not dispute their jurisdiction, even though the contract between the two parties contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country.

| 2. | Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between parties to a contract which contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a third country, the court of the Member State in which the defendant has its seat, which has been seised, from declaring of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction, even though the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

(Case C-179/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet - Unauthorised use of the mark - Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party - Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party))

(2016/C 156/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Daimler AG

Defendant: Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a third party, who is named in an advertisement on a website, which contains a sign identical or similar to a trade mark in such a way as to give the impression that there is a commercial relationship between him and the proprietor of the trade mark, does not make use of that sign that may be prohibited by that proprietor under that provision, where that advertisement has not been placed by that third party or on his behalf or, if that advertisement has been placed by that third party or on his behalf with the consent of the proprietor, where that third party has expressly requested the operator of that website, from whom the third party ordered the advertisement, to remove the advertisement or the reference to the mark contained therein.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.

(Case C-252/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Article 51(1)(a) - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75))

(2016/C 156/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Energy Brands, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

(Case C-695/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 3(3) - Right of Member States to send an applicant to a safe third country - Article 18 - Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Examination of an application for international protection))

(2016/C 156/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shiraz Baig Mirza

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the right to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country may also be exercised by a Member State after that Member State has accepted that it is responsible, pursuant to that regulation and within the context of the take-back procedure, for examining an application for international protection submitted by an applicant who left that Member State before a decision on the substance of his first application for international protection had been taken. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the right to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country may also be exercised by a Member State after that Member State has accepted that it is responsible, pursuant to that regulation and within the context of the take-back procedure, for examining an application for international protection submitted by an applicant who left that Member State before a decision on the substance of his first application for international protection had been taken.

| 2. | Article 3(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding the sending of an applicant for international protection to a safe third country when the Member State carrying out the transfer of that applicant to the Member State responsible has not been informed, during the take-back procedure, either of the rules of the latter Member State relating to the sending of applicants to safe third countries or of the relevant practice of its competent authorities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding the sending of an applicant for international protection to a safe third country when the Member State carrying out the transfer of that applicant to the Member State responsible has not been informed, during the take-back procedure, either of the rules of the latter Member State relating to the sending of applicants to safe third countries or of the relevant practice of its competent authorities.

| 3. | Article 18(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not requiring that, in the event that an applicant for international protection is taken back, the procedure for examining that applicant’s application be resumed at the stage at which it was discontinued. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 18(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not requiring that, in the event that an applicant for international protection is taken back, the procedure for examining that applicant’s application be resumed at the stage at which it was discontinued.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-28/16)

(2016/C 156/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM)

Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way?

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way?

| 4. | Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent?

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2016 — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

(Case C-54/16)

(2016/C 156/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation

Defendant: Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the ‘proof’ that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) requires of the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors, in order to prevent that act from being challenged in accordance with the rules of the lex fori concursus, include a requirement to raise a procedural objection in the strict sense of that term within the periods laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori, when seeking to rely on the derogation provided in the regulation and to prove that the two conditions laid down by that provision have been met?
  or
  Does Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 apply when the party concerned has requested its application during the proceedings, even when the time limits laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori for lodging procedural objections have expired, or even where that provision is applied by the court of its own motion, provided that the party concerned has provided proof that the detrimental act is subject to the lex causae of another Member State whose law does not permit the act to be challenged by any means in the specific circumstances of the case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the ‘proof’ that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) requires of the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors, in order to prevent that act from being challenged in accordance with the rules of the lex fori concursus, include a requirement to raise a procedural objection in the strict sense of that term within the periods laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori, when seeking to rely on the derogation provided in the regulation and to prove that the two conditions laid down by that provision have been met?

or

Does Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 apply when the party concerned has requested its application during the proceedings, even when the time limits laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori for lodging procedural objections have expired, or even where that provision is applied by the court of its own motion, provided that the party concerned has provided proof that the detrimental act is subject to the lex causae of another Member State whose law does not permit the act to be challenged by any means in the specific circumstances of the case?

| 2. | Must the reference to the rules of the lex causae in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, for establishing whether ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’, be interpreted as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the lex causae does not provide, in general or in the abstract, any means to challenge an act such as that which, in the present case, was considered detrimental — namely the payment of a contractual debt — or as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, where the lex causae allows an act of that type to be challenged, the conditions to be met in order for such a challenge to be upheld in the relevant case, which differ from those of the lex fori concursus, have not actually been fulfilled? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the reference to the rules of the lex causae in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, for establishing whether ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’, be interpreted as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the lex causae does not provide, in general or in the abstract, any means to challenge an act such as that which, in the present case, was considered detrimental — namely the payment of a contractual debt — or as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, where the lex causae allows an act of that type to be challenged, the conditions to be met in order for such a challenge to be upheld in the relevant case, which differ from those of the lex fori concursus, have not actually been fulfilled?

| 3. | Is the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 1346/2000 — bearing in mind its objective of protecting the legitimate expectations of the parties concerning the stability of the act in accordance with the lex causae — applicable even when the parties to a contract have their head offices in a single Member State, whose law can therefore be expected to be intended to become the lex fori concursus in the event of insolvency on the part of one of those parties, and the parties, via a contractual clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable, exclude the setting aside of acts performed under the contract from the application of the mandatory rules of the lex fori concursus imposed in order to protect the principle that all creditors should be treated equally, to the detriment of all the creditors in the event of insolvency? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 1346/2000 — bearing in mind its objective of protecting the legitimate expectations of the parties concerning the stability of the act in accordance with the lex causae — applicable even when the parties to a contract have their head offices in a single Member State, whose law can therefore be expected to be intended to become the lex fori concursus in the event of insolvency on the part of one of those parties, and the parties, via a contractual clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable, exclude the setting aside of acts performed under the contract from the application of the mandatory rules of the lex fori concursus imposed in order to protect the principle that all creditors should be treated equally, to the detriment of all the creditors in the event of insolvency?

| 4. | Must Article 1(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘situations involving a conflict of laws’ for the purposes of the application of that regulation also include a situation involving a charter contract concluded in a Member State between companies with their head offices in the same Member State, with a clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 1(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘situations involving a conflict of laws’ for the purposes of the application of that regulation also include a situation involving a charter contract concluded in a Member State between companies with their head offices in the same Member State, with a clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable?

| 5. | If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, must Article 3(3) of Regulation No 593/2008, read in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, be interpreted as meaning that where the parties choose to subject a contract to the law of a Member State other than that in which ‘all the other elements relevant to the situation’ are located, that does not affect the application of mandatory rules under the law of the latter Member State, which apply as the lex fori concursus, for the purpose of challenging acts performed before the insolvency to the detriment of all the creditors, thereby prevailing over the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, must Article 3(3) of Regulation No 593/2008, read in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, be interpreted as meaning that where the parties choose to subject a contract to the law of a Member State other than that in which ‘all the other elements relevant to the situation’ are located, that does not affect the application of mandatory rules under the law of the latter Member State, which apply as the lex fori concursus, for the purpose of challenging acts performed before the insolvency to the detriment of all the creditors, thereby prevailing over the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000?

---

(1)  Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2016 — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas

(Case C-64/16)

(2016/C 156/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

Question referred

In view of the mandatory requirements of eliminating the excessive budget deficit and of financial assistance regulated by EU rules, must the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the measures to reduce remuneration that are applied to the judiciary in Portugal, where they are imposed unilaterally and on an ongoing basis by other constitutional authorities and bodies, as is the consequence of Article 2 of Law No 75/2014 of 12 September?

---

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

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

(Case C-75/16)

(2016/C 156/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli

Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far as it provides that Directive 2013/11 (1)‘shall be without prejudice to Directive 2008/52’, (2) must Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/11 be construed as meaning that it is without prejudice to the possibility for individual Member States of providing for compulsory mediation solely in those cases which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2013/11, that is to say the cases referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2013/11, contractual disputes arising out of contracts other than sales or service contracts, as well as those which do not concern consumers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as it provides that Directive 2013/11 (1)‘shall be without prejudice to Directive 2008/52’, (2) must Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/11 be construed as meaning that it is without prejudice to the possibility for individual Member States of providing for compulsory mediation solely in those cases which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2013/11, that is to say the cases referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2013/11, contractual disputes arising out of contracts other than sales or service contracts, as well as those which do not concern consumers?

| 2. | In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 ... of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 ... of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63).

(2)  Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Giovanni Pesce and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile and Others

(Case C-78/16)

(2016/C 156/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giovanni Pesce, Cosima Tomaselli, Angela Tomaselli

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario delegato OCDPC No 225/2015, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Puglia

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Directive 2000/29/EC, (1) as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Articles 11(3), 13c(7), and 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) thereof, and the principles of proportionality, logic and reasonableness preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, (2) as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry), in so far as it requires that host plants, regardless of their health status, be immediately removed within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism, and at the same time provides that the Member State is to carry out appropriate phytosanitary treatments prior to the removal of plants referred to in paragraph 2 against the vectors of the specified organism and plants that may host those vectors and that those treatments may include, as appropriate, removal of plants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Directive 2000/29/EC, (1) as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Articles 11(3), 13c(7), and 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) thereof, and the principles of proportionality, logic and reasonableness preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, (2) as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry), in so far as it requires that host plants, regardless of their health status, be immediately removed within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism, and at the same time provides that the Member State is to carry out appropriate phytosanitary treatments prior to the removal of plants referred to in paragraph 2 against the vectors of the specified organism and plants that may host those vectors and that those treatments may include, as appropriate, removal of plants?

| 2. | Does Directive 2000/29/EC, as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Article 16(1) thereof, preclude, by use of the phrase ‘necessary measures to eradicate, or if that is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned’, the application of Article 6(2) of European Commission Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 2000/29/EC, as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Article 16(1) thereof, preclude, by use of the phrase ‘necessary measures to eradicate, or if that is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned’, the application of Article 6(2) of European Commission Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected?

| 3. | Do Articles 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the principles of proportionality and logic and the right to due process preclude an interpretation of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — to the effect that the eradication measure referred to in Article 6(2) can be imposed before and independently of the preventive measures provided for in Articles 6(3) and (4)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the principles of proportionality and logic and the right to due process preclude an interpretation of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — to the effect that the eradication measure referred to in Article 6(2) can be imposed before and independently of the preventive measures provided for in Articles 6(3) and (4)?

| 4. | Do the precautionary principle and the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it imposes measures to eradicate host plants within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been found to be infected by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, without adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate with certainty the causal relationship between the presence of the organism and the desiccation of the plants deemed to be infected? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the precautionary principle and the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it imposes measures to eradicate host plants within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been found to be infected by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, without adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate with certainty the causal relationship between the presence of the organism and the desiccation of the plants deemed to be infected?

| 5. | Do the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/UE, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of the hosts plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected, since it fails to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/UE, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of the hosts plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected, since it fails to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 6. | Do the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — which provides measures for the removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, of plants known to be infected by the specified organism, and of plants showing symptoms indicating possible infection by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, or suspected of being infected by that organism, without providing for any form of compensation for the owners not responsible for the spread of the organism in question? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Do the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — which provides measures for the removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, of plants known to be infected by the specified organism, and of plants showing symptoms indicating possible infection by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, or suspected of being infected by that organism, without providing for any form of compensation for the owners not responsible for the spread of the organism in question?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Cesare Serinelli and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

(Case C-79/16)

(2016/C 156/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cesare Serinelli, Cosimo Antonio Palma, Maria Monico, Cosimo Miglietta, Mariano Luigi Mariano, Elena Russo, Galeana Miglietta, Pasqualina Cretì, Francesco D’Arpe, Antonietta Spalluto, Francesca Leo, Giovanna Malatesta, Vincenzo Conte, Luigi Ampolo, Raffaele Fasiello, Maria Miccoli, Anna Leone, Oronzo Maiorano, Antonio Rampino, Raffaele Tommasi, Fernando Elia

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato OCDPC No 225/2015, Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, Regione Puglia

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Directive 2000/29/EC, (1) as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Articles 11(3), 13c(7), and 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) thereof, and the principles of proportionality, logic and reasonableness preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, (2) as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry), in so far as it requires that host plants, regardless of their health status, be immediately removed within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism, and at the same time provides that the Member State is to carry out appropriate phytosanitary treatments prior to the removal of plants referred to in paragraph 2 against the vectors of the specified organism and plants that may host those vectors and that those treatments may include, as appropriate, removal of plants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Directive 2000/29/EC, (1) as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Articles 11(3), 13c(7), and 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) thereof, and the principles of proportionality, logic and reasonableness preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, (2) as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry), in so far as it requires that host plants, regardless of their health status, be immediately removed within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism, and at the same time provides that the Member State is to carry out appropriate phytosanitary treatments prior to the removal of plants referred to in paragraph 2 against the vectors of the specified organism and plants that may host those vectors and that those treatments may include, as appropriate, removal of plants?

| 2. | Does Directive 2000/29/EC, as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Article 16(1) thereof, preclude, by use of the phrase ‘necessary measures to eradicate, or if that is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned’, the application of Article 6(2) of European Commission Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 2000/29/EC, as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Article 16(1) thereof, preclude, by use of the phrase ‘necessary measures to eradicate, or if that is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned’, the application of Article 6(2) of European Commission Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected?

| 3. | Do Articles 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the principles of proportionality and logic and the right to due process preclude an interpretation of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — to the effect that the eradication measure referred to in Article 6(2) can be imposed before and independently of the preventive measures provided for in Articles 6(3) and (4)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the principles of proportionality and logic and the right to due process preclude an interpretation of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — to the effect that the eradication measure referred to in Article 6(2) can be imposed before and independently of the preventive measures provided for in Articles 6(3) and (4)?

| 4. | Do the precautionary principle and the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it imposes measures to eradicate host plants within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been found to be infected by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, without adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate with certainty the causal relationship between the presence of the organism and the desiccation of the plants deemed to be infected? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the precautionary principle and the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it imposes measures to eradicate host plants within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been found to be infected by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, without adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate with certainty the causal relationship between the presence of the organism and the desiccation of the plants deemed to be infected?

| 5. | Do the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/UE, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of the hosts plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected, since it fails to provide an adequate statement of reasons? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/UE, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of the hosts plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected, since it fails to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

| 6. | Do the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — which provides measures for the removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, of plants known to be infected by the specified organism, and of plants showing symptoms indicating possible infection by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, or suspected of being infected by that organism, without providing for any form of compensation for the owners not responsible for the spread of the organism in question? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Do the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — which provides measures for the removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, of plants known to be infected by the specified organism, and of plants showing symptoms indicating possible infection by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, or suspected of being infected by that organism, without providing for any form of compensation for the owners not responsible for the spread of the organism in question?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

(Case C-92/16)

(2016/C 156/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Defendants: Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier?

| 2. | If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier?

| 3. | Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13?

| 4. | May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings?

| 5. | Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)

---

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

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

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.

(Case C-93/16)

(2016/C 156/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante, Sección octava

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited

Respondent: Tindale & Stanton Ltd España, S.L.

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far as Article 9(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) requires that, in order for the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prevent a third party not having his consent from using a sign in the course of trade in the cases set out in that provision, there should exist a likelihood of confusion, can this provision be interpreted as meaning that there is no likelihood of confusion where the earlier Community trade mark has, owing to the acquiescence of the proprietor, peacefully coexisted for some years with similar national trade marks in two Member States of the European Union, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those two Member States is extended to other Member States, or to the European Union as a whole, regard being had to the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as Article 9(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) requires that, in order for the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prevent a third party not having his consent from using a sign in the course of trade in the cases set out in that provision, there should exist a likelihood of confusion, can this provision be interpreted as meaning that there is no likelihood of confusion where the earlier Community trade mark has, owing to the acquiescence of the proprietor, peacefully coexisted for some years with similar national trade marks in two Member States of the European Union, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those two Member States is extended to other Member States, or to the European Union as a whole, regard being had to the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires?

| 2. | In the situation set out in the previous paragraph, can the geographical, demographic, economic or other circumstances of the States in which the coexistence has occurred be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the likelihood of confusion, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those Member States can be extended to a third Member State, or to the European Union as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the situation set out in the previous paragraph, can the geographical, demographic, economic or other circumstances of the States in which the coexistence has occurred be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the likelihood of confusion, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those Member States can be extended to a third Member State, or to the European Union as a whole?

| 3. | With regard to the case referred to in subparagraph (c) of Article 9(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, must this provision be interpreted as meaning that, where an earlier trade mark has coexisted with the contested sign for a certain number of years in two European Union Member States without the proprietor of the earlier trade mark opposing it, this acquiescence on the part of the proprietor towards the use of the later sign in these two States in particular can be extended to the remaining territory of the European Union for the purpose of determining whether there is due cause for a third party’s use of the later sign, on account of the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires? |
| --- | --- |

3.

With regard to the case referred to in subparagraph (c) of Article 9(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, must this provision be interpreted as meaning that, where an earlier trade mark has coexisted with the contested sign for a certain number of years in two European Union Member States without the proprietor of the earlier trade mark opposing it, this acquiescence on the part of the proprietor towards the use of the later sign in these two States in particular can be extended to the remaining territory of the European Union for the purpose of determining whether there is due cause for a third party’s use of the later sign, on account of the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-97/16)

(2016/C 156/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: José María Pérez Retamero

Defendants: TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic legal provisions such as Article 1.3(g) of the Workers’ Statute, which provides that ‘persons providing a transport service by virtue of administrative authorisations of which they are the holders, carried out ... using vehicles ... of which ownership or a direct power of disposal is vested in them cannot be regarded as ‘mobile workers’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic legal provisions such as Article 1.3(g) of the Workers’ Statute, which provides that ‘persons providing a transport service by virtue of administrative authorisations of which they are the holders, carried out ... using vehicles ... of which ownership or a direct power of disposal is vested in them cannot be regarded as ‘mobile workers’?

| 2. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki

(Case C-108/16)

(2016/C 156/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Paweł Dworzecki

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1)







  — | ‘in due time ...was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1)

—

‘in due time ...was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’

and

| — | ‘in due time ... by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’
  autonomous concepts of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

—

‘in due time ... by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’

autonomous concepts of EU law?

| 2. | If so:






  – a. | how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If so:

– a.

how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and

| – b. | does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:






  — | according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; |
| --- | --- | --- |

– b.

does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:

—

according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person;

| — | it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person;

| — | it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, |
| --- | --- |

—

it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial,

fall under one of those two autonomous concepts?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas

(Case C-109/16)

(2016/C 156/40)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: VĮ Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas

Other party to the proceedings in cassation: Alvydas Raišelis

Questions referred

| 1. | In cases where a credit institution operates as an investment firm to which funds have been transferred for the acquisition of debt securities issued by the same credit institution, but the securities issue does not become effective and the securities are not transferred to the ownership of the person who has paid the funds, while the funds have already been debited from that person’s bank account and transferred to an account opened in the name of the credit institution and are not repayable, and the national legislative intent in such a case is not clear with regard to the application of a specific protection scheme, can Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive (1) and Article 1(4) of the Investor Directive (2) be applied directly in order to determine the applicable coverage scheme, and is the intended use of the funds the decisive criterion for that purpose? Do those provisions of the directives display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that they may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In cases where a credit institution operates as an investment firm to which funds have been transferred for the acquisition of debt securities issued by the same credit institution, but the securities issue does not become effective and the securities are not transferred to the ownership of the person who has paid the funds, while the funds have already been debited from that person’s bank account and transferred to an account opened in the name of the credit institution and are not repayable, and the national legislative intent in such a case is not clear with regard to the application of a specific protection scheme, can Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive (1) and Article 1(4) of the Investor Directive (2) be applied directly in order to determine the applicable coverage scheme, and is the intended use of the funds the decisive criterion for that purpose? Do those provisions of the directives display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that they may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover?

| 2. | Should Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the investor compensation scheme, be understood and interpreted as also covering claims for repayment of funds that an investment firm owes to investors and that are not held in the name of the investors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the investor compensation scheme, be understood and interpreted as also covering claims for repayment of funds that an investment firm owes to investors and that are not held in the name of the investors?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the compensation scheme, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that that provision may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the compensation scheme, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that that provision may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover?

| 4. | Should Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive be understood and interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘deposit’ under that directive also includes funds transferred from a personal account, with the person’s consent, to an account opened in the name of a credit institution which is held at the same credit institution and is intended to pay for the future debt securities issue of that institution? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Should Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive be understood and interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘deposit’ under that directive also includes funds transferred from a personal account, with the person’s consent, to an account opened in the name of a credit institution which is held at the same credit institution and is intended to pay for the future debt securities issue of that institution?

| 5. | Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of the Deposit Directive, taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1.3(i) and (ii) of the Deposit Directive has been made? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of the Deposit Directive, taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1.3(i) and (ii) of the Deposit Directive has been made?

---

(1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

(2)  Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/31

---

Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

(Case C-128/16 P)

(2016/C 156/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, S.A.U. and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13;

| — | remit the case to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the General Court;

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

—

order the applicants to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.






  — | The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.

—

The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

General Court

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Karl-May-Verlag v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU)

(Case T-501/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark WINNETOU - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Principles of autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 156/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Karl-May-Verlag GmbH, formerly Karl May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Pejman and M. Brenner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians and S. Schmidt, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 125/2012-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Constantin Film Produktion GmbH and Karl-May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 July 2013 (Case R 125/2012-1) in so far as it rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 July 2013 (Case R 125/2012-1) in so far as it rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Karl-May-Verlag GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Karl-May-Verlag GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Constantin Film Produktion GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Constantin Film Produktion GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)

(Case T-645/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark E - Earlier Community figurative mark E - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/43)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Evcharis Nezi (Mykonos, Greece) (represented by: A. Salkitzoglou, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Etam SAS (Clichy, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut and A. Champanhet, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2013 (Case R 329/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Etam SAS and Mrs Evcharis Nezi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the cross-claim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the cross-claim;

| 3. | Orders Mrs Evcharis Nezi and Etam SAS to each bear half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), and to each pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mrs Evcharis Nezi and Etam SAS to each bear half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), and to each pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T-103/14) (1)

((State aid - Excise duties - Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Rights of the defence - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Private creditor test - Burden of proof))

(2016/C 156/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s. (OJ 2014 L 176, p. 38).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/342/EU of 16 October 2013 on State aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) granted by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s.;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Frucona Košice, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Frucona Košice, including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

(Case T-201/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM - Earlier Benelux word mark SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 1516/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Body Shop International plc and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Body Shop International plc to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Body Shop International plc to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

(Case T-586/14) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Significant distortion arising from the former non-market economy system - Tax incentives))

(2016/C 156/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2014 L 142, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ 2014 L 253, p. 4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN)

(Case T-785/14) (1)

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

(2016/C 156/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 1960/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi and El Corte Inglés, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS

(Case T-792/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius - Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations))

(2016/C 156/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand-Baie, Mauritius) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:223), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13) in so far as it dismisses the action brought by Mr Eric Vanhalewyn; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13) in so far as it dismisses the action brought by Mr Eric Vanhalewyn;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 19 December 2012 revising the amount of the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to staff posted in a third country in so far as that decision withdraws the ALC laid down in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials and other servants posted to Mauritius; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 19 December 2012 revising the amount of the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to staff posted in a third country in so far as that decision withdraws the ALC laid down in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials and other servants posted to Mauritius;

| 3. | Orders the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Zoofachhandel Züpke and Others v Commission

(Case T-817/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Health policy - Combating avian influenza - Prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the EU - Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 - Sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on individuals - Manifest and serious disregard for the limits of discretion - Proportionality - Duty of care - Articles 15 to 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))

(2016/C 156/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), and Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants, from 1 January 2010, by reason of the adoption of the prohibition of the importation of captured wild birds into the European Union contained, first, in Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and, subsequently, in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH, Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG, Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche, Ms Rita Bürgel and Mr Norbert Kass to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH, Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG, Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche, Ms Rita Bürgel and Mr Norbert Kass to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

(Case T-33/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BIMBO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 (Case R 251/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BIMBO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15) (1)

((Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of assessment - Force majeure))

(2016/C 156/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015 relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540 721,10.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)

(Case T-78/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark IPVanish - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (Winter Park, Florida, United States) (represented by: H. Eckermann and A. Dellmeier, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1417/2014-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign IPVanish as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mudhook Marketing, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mudhook Marketing, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

(Case T-90/15) (1)

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

(2016/C 156/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sqope SA and Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM and Sqope SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Schoeller Corporation GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and Sqope SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Dextro Energy v European Commission

(Case T-100/15) (1)

((Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health - Refusal to authorise certain claims despite the positive opinion of the EFSA - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons))

(2016/C 156/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks)

(Case T-363/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/55)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1690/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a game chest containing wooden blocks as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/42

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission

(Case T-575/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Privatisation - Support measures for a debtor of the applicant - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.34572 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/43

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission

(Case T-576/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Privatisation - Support measures for a debtor of the applicant - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1805 of 27 March 2014 declaring that the sale of some of the assets exploited by Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA did not constitute State aid [SA. 37954 (2013/N)].

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/43

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS)

(Case T-840/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2040/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and International Gaming Projects Ltd.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/44

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission

(Case T-94/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - No prorogation of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Lack of locus standi - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, H. Kranenborg and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Binca Seafoods GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Binca Seafoods GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/45

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission

(Case T-436/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Request to modify the form of order sought - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otranto, Italy) and Negro Daniele (Otranto) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), in so far as the vine (Vitis) is included in Annex I to that decision and Article 9 of the latter prohibits movement within the European Union, within or out of the demarcated areas.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/45

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission

(Case T-437/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe (Copertino, Italy) and the 38 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex to the order (represented by: G. Manelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), and, in particular, Articles 6 and 9 thereof, read in conjunction with Annex I to that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and the 38 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and the 38 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/46

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-438/15) (1)

((State aid - Corporation tax - Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium - Commission letter informing the Member State of its preliminary assessment of that aid as being incompatible with the internal market and of the likely adoption of appropriate measures - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium), and Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision, ostensibly contained in the Commission’s letter of 1 June 2015, finding that the corporation tax exemption for Belgian ports constitutes existing State aid that is incompatible with the internal market (State aid SA.38393 (2014/CP)).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, the Port autonome de Namur, the Port autonome de Charleroi and the Région wallonne shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, the Port autonome de Namur, the Port autonome de Charleroi and the Région wallonne shall bear their own respective costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Port autonome de Liège and the Société régionale du port de Bruxelles shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Port autonome de Liège and the Société régionale du port de Bruxelles shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/47

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission

(Case T-439/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Amrita Sarl (Scorrano, Italy) and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex to the order (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), where appropriate after having declined to apply Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Amrita Sarl and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Amrita Sarl and the 28 other applicants whose names are included in the Annex are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/47

---

Order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 — SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM — StoryDOCKS (tolino)

(Case T-490/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 156/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Köklü, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: StoryDOCKS GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Graef and C. Rauda, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 (Case R 2042/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Verlag Friedrich Oetinger GmbH, now StoryDOCKS GmbH, and PF&P Rechtsanwälte, now SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB and StoryDOCKS GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by SGP Rechtsanwälte Hero, Langbein, Zwecker PartGmbB and StoryDOCKS GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/48

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurofast v Commission

(Case T-87/16 R)

((Application for interim measures - Subsidies - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted - Debit note - Set-off - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2016/C 156/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, essentially, for suspension of operation of the set-off decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 addressed to the applicant and seeking recovery of EUR 69 923,68owed under a subsidy contract.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/49

---

Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Rabbit v EUIPO — DMG Media (rabbit)

(Case T-4/16)

(2016/C 156/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rabbit, Inc. (Redwood City, United States) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMG Media Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘rabbit’ — Application for registration No 11 701 869

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2133/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal was wrong in law in stating that, when comparing the respective goods/services of the EU trade mark application and the opponent’s EU trade mark registration, the comparison must consider only the goods and services as mentioned in the lists and not in the light of the actual use made of the marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal was wrong in law in stating that, when comparing the respective goods/services of the EU trade mark application and the opponent’s EU trade mark registration, the comparison must consider only the goods and services as mentioned in the lists and not in the light of the actual use made of the marks;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for discounting actual evidence of use; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for discounting actual evidence of use;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to take proper account of the descriptiveness of the ‘rabbit’ mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to take proper account of the descriptiveness of the ‘rabbit’ mark.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/49

---

Action brought on 15 February 2016 — E-Control v ACER

(Case T-63/16)

(2016/C 156/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ACER of 16 December 2015, in Case A-001-2015; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ACER of 16 December 2015, in Case A-001-2015; and

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 a violation of essential procedural requirements.
  Essential procedural requirements were disregarded in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, namely E-Control’s fundamental procedural right to challenge the legality of the Opinion of the ACER No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (1) and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto (the ‘Opinion’) and E-Control’s right to make its legal position heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements.

Essential procedural requirements were disregarded in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, namely E-Control’s fundamental procedural right to challenge the legality of the Opinion of the ACER No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (1) and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto (the ‘Opinion’) and E-Control’s right to make its legal position heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law in holding that the Opinion does not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 (2).
  The Board of Appeal of ACER erred in law in holding that E-Control’s appeal against the Opinion was inadmissible because ACER’s Opinion did not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009, denying E-Control the right to appeal. The Opinion subject to the appeal constitutes a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 as it has direct legal effects on E-Control. Therefore, a right to appeal exists and the Board of Appeal would have had to consider the appeal by E-Control on its merits. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law in holding that the Opinion does not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 (2).

The Board of Appeal of ACER erred in law in holding that E-Control’s appeal against the Opinion was inadmissible because ACER’s Opinion did not constitute a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009, denying E-Control the right to appeal. The Opinion subject to the appeal constitutes a decision in the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 as it has direct legal effects on E-Control. Therefore, a right to appeal exists and the Board of Appeal would have had to consider the appeal by E-Control on its merits.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the absence of proper justification.
  The Board of Appeal of ACER failed to provide proper justification in the contested decision as its legal assessment is in principle limited to the finding that the Opinion constitutes an intermediate measure and a preparatory step for potential further actions of the Commission. The contested decision is not based on a consideration of E-Control’s legal arguments and does not contain a proper justification of (potentially opposing) views of the Board of Appeal of ACER. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the absence of proper justification.

The Board of Appeal of ACER failed to provide proper justification in the contested decision as its legal assessment is in principle limited to the finding that the Opinion constitutes an intermediate measure and a preparatory step for potential further actions of the Commission. The contested decision is not based on a consideration of E-Control’s legal arguments and does not contain a proper justification of (potentially opposing) views of the Board of Appeal of ACER.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the relevant legal principles.
  The Board of Appeal of ACER limited its legal assessment of E-Control’s appeal to the finding that ACER’s Opinion constitutes a provisional and intermediate measure serving solely as a preparatory step for potential future actions of the Commission. In the view of the Board of Appeal of ACER, the Opinion may therefore, as an intermediate measure, not form the subject-matter of an appeal. This legal view is not correct. The Opinion constitutes an independent, final and stand-alone act of an agency of the European Union and therefore, as of itself, forms the subject-matter of an action for annulment and consequently also for an appeal according to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009. Had the Board of Appeal applied the relevant legal principles correctly, it would have annulled the Opinion. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the relevant legal principles.

The Board of Appeal of ACER limited its legal assessment of E-Control’s appeal to the finding that ACER’s Opinion constitutes a provisional and intermediate measure serving solely as a preparatory step for potential future actions of the Commission. In the view of the Board of Appeal of ACER, the Opinion may therefore, as an intermediate measure, not form the subject-matter of an appeal. This legal view is not correct. The Opinion constitutes an independent, final and stand-alone act of an agency of the European Union and therefore, as of itself, forms the subject-matter of an action for annulment and consequently also for an appeal according to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009. Had the Board of Appeal applied the relevant legal principles correctly, it would have annulled the Opinion.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 1).

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

---

Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)

(Case T-81/16)

(2016/C 156/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting in two curved stripes positioned on the sidewall of a tyre — Application for registration No 13 388 293

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 1019/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds;

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

---

Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate

(Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)

(Case T-90/16)

(2016/C 156/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3

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

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/52

---

Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal France (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

(Case T-95/16)

(2016/C 156/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaporal France (Marseilles, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROYAL & CAPORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 587 663

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 in Case R 867/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to register the trade mark ROYAL & CAPORAL (application No 12 587 663); |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to register the trade mark ROYAL & CAPORAL (application No 12 587 663);

| — | order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs and expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs and expenses.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/53

---

Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

(Case T-96/16)

(2016/C 156/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’ — Application for registration No 13 355 508

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 in Case R 613/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision insofar as it refuses the registration of EU trade mark application No 13 355 508 ‘STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.’;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/53

---

Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)

(Case T-103/16)

(2016/C 156/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Alpenschmaus’ — Application for registration No 10 198 992

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2725/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/54

---

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2016 — SACBO v INEA

(Case T-692/13) (1)

(2016/C 156/73)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/54

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council

(Case T-275/15) (1)

(2016/C 156/74)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/54

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME

(Case T-569/15) (1)

(2016/C 156/75)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Pasqualetti v Commission

(Case F-2/15) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff recruited by the EEAS - Installation allowance - Daily subsistence allowance - Place of origin - Place of recruitment - Change in the place of residence - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2016/C 156/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gergő Pasqualetti (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and T. S. Bohr, acting as Agents, and subsequently by T. S. Bohr, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance and application seeking an order that the Commission pay him those allowances together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014, by which it refused to grant Mr Pasqualetti entitlement to the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance, provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014, by which it refused to grant Mr Pasqualetti entitlement to the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance, provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Pasqualetti, in accordance with the rules in the Staff Regulations as currently in force, the allowances referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part, together with default interest, from the dates on which they became payable respectively until the date of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Pasqualetti, in accordance with the rules in the Staff Regulations as currently in force, the allowances referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part, together with default interest, from the dates on which they became payable respectively until the date of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

| 3. | Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr Pasqualetti. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Commission shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr Pasqualetti.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23/3/2015, p. 25.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-23/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Obligations - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official - Article 12 of the Staff Regulations - Disciplinary procedure - Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts - Reprimand - Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Consequences of the irregularity))

(2016/C 156/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 42.

---

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/56

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2016 — GZ v Parliament

(Case F-109/15) (1)

(2016/C 156/78)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5/10/2015, p. 36.

---