title: Case T-584/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national work marks PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 –Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)
      (Case T-584/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national work marks PRIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 381/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 (Case R 1933/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bolton Cile España and Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-527/18: Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/30

      Action brought on 6 September 2018 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)
      (Case T-527/18)
      (2018/C 381/35)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnium, SA (Manresa, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tec.nicum’ — European Union trade mark No 13 626 791

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 in Case R 2427/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the application for registration of the contested mark for Class 42;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  No genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based;

                  —

                  Incorrect identification of the relevant public;

                  —

                  No similarity between the services;

                  —

                  No similarity between the opposing marks;

                  —

                  No likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-101/17: Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/25

      Order of the General Court of 27 July 2018 — Apple Distribution International v Commission
      (Case T-101/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 381/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr and A. Patsa, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, G. Braun and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt.

                  3.

                  Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

                  4.

                  Apple Distribution International, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case C-256/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/2

      Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 23 January 2018 in Case T-759/16, Campailla v European Union
      (Case C-256/18 P)
      (2018/C 381/02)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union
      By order of 7 August 2018, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly unfounded and, in part, manifestly ineffective.


title: Case T-613/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — PH v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition — Family connection to a member of the selection board — Equal treatment)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — PH v Commission
      (Case T-613/16) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Recruitment - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 - Decision to exclude the candidate from the competition - Family connection to a member of the selection board - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 381/21)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 19 May 2016 confirming, in response to a request for review made by the applicant, the exclusion of the latter from the competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders PH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-43/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-251/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2018 — IFSUA v Council (Interim measures — Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks — Measures on European seabass fisheries — Ban on catches in recreational fisheries — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/26

      Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2018 — IFSUA v Council
      (Case T-251/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks - Measures on European seabass fisheries - Ban on catches in recreational fisheries - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
      (2018/C 381/30)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. Gui Mori, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta, F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 for the suspension of operation of Article 2(2) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018, L.27, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-539/18 P: Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/11

      Appeal brought on 16 August 2018 by České dráhy a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission
      (Case C-539/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/15)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář and J. Kindl, advokáti)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Subject matter

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission.
      By that judgment the General Court dismissed the action brought under Article 263 TFEU in which České dráhy sought the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins. The General Court also ordered České dráhy to pay the costs.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 June 2018 in Case T-621/16 České dráhy v Commission, EU:T:2018:367;

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 in Case AT.40401 — Twins;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs of České dráhy in connection with Case T-621/16 and those of České dráhy in connection with the appeal proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In support of the appeal České dráhy puts forward four grounds of appeal.

                  1.

                  First ground of appeal: in so far as the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16, it should also allow the present appeal.
                  By the appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 in Case T-325/16, České dráhy seeks for the Court of Justice to annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission ordering an inspection carried out at the seat of České dráhy in April 2016. The Commission’s decision of 22 June 2016, which České dráhy seeks to have annulled in the associated case, was adopted on the basis of documents seized during that earlier inspection. If, then, the Court of Justice allows the appeal of České dráhy in Case T-325/16 (that is, if the Court of Justice finds that the earlier inspection was entirely unlawful), it should also annul the contested decision of the Commission of 22 June 2016.

                  2.

                  Second ground of appeal: the General Court did not examine whether the documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered had been seized within the unlawful part of the first inspection, and it decided as if the first inspection had been ordered entirely in accordance with the law.
                  The documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered were seized in the preceding (first) inspection of the Commission at the seat of České dráhy. By its judgment in Case T-325/16 the General Court annulled in part the Commission’s decision ordering the first inspection, to the extent that it did not concern alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route. České dráhy considers that the documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were seized in the unlawful part of the first inspection (the Commission would not have come across them if it had carried out the first inspection solely to the lawful extent) and could not therefore be used as a basis for ordering the second inspection. The General Court did not examine those questions.

                  3.

                  Third ground of appeal: the General Court assessed on the basis of an incorrect legal criterion whether those documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were related to alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route.
                  The General Court proceeded from the incorrect legal criterion that practically any documents found at the seat of České dráhy could be linked with assessing the alleged predatory pricing of that company on the Prague-Ostrava route (according to that legal criterion, the Commission’s inspection directed to alleged predatory pricing is practically unlimited). On the basis of that incorrect legal criterion the General Court came to the conclusion that the Commission had been entitled during its first inspection to seize the documents on the basis of which it subsequently ordered the second inspection.

                  4.

                  Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court’s decision on costs is wrong.
                  České dráhy contends that the General Court rightly had to allow the application and thus also order the Commission to reimburse České dráhy the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-531/18: Action brought on 26 June 2018 — LL-Carpenter v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/45

      Action brought on 26 June 2018 — LL-Carpenter v Commission
      (Case T-531/18)
      (2018/C 399/60)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: LL-Carpenter s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Buřil, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul Decision C(2018) 4138 final of the European Commission of 26 June 2018 in Case AT.40037 — Carpenter/Subaru rejecting, in accordance with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (‘Regulation No 1/2003’) and Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (‘Regulation No 773/2004’), the applicant’s complaint pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 dated 6 September 2012 alleging infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error consisting in incorrect legal assessment and manifestly incorrect assessment of the facts.

                              —

                              The European Commission assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the anti-competitive conduct of which the applicant was accused (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned) had been dealt with by the national economic competition authority in the Czech Republic, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1/2003 were satisfied (as far as the Czech Republic was concerned).

                              —

                              The European Commission did not examine thoroughly all the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, and for that reason assessed the facts incorrectly in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s written observations did not lead to a different evaluation of the complaint and that the probability that the occurrence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU would be ascertained appeared to be low, and made an incorrect legal assessment of the case to the effect that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 were satisfied.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by procedural error consisting in the fact that the European Commission does not set out appropriate reasoning in the decision.

                              —

                              The European Commission did not state what priorities it proceeded from in deciding that it would not carry out further investigations in the case, merely referring to the anticipated high cost of further investigations.

                              —

                              The European Commission did not explain how it assessed the evidence or for what reason it did not take into consideration the factual and legal circumstances communicated to it by the applicant, or why it based its decision to reject the complaint solely on assertions taken from the written observations of the company against which the complaint was directed.


title: Case C-471/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification of goods — Fried instant noodles — Tariff subheading 1902 30 10)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/11

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover
      (Case C-471/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification of goods - Fried instant noodles - Tariff subheading 1902 30 10))
      (2018/C 399/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

         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, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that subheading 1902 30 10 thereof covers instant noodle dishes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are, in essence, composed of a block of pre-cooked and fried noodles.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-537/13: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/65

      Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)
      (Case T-537/13) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2018/C 427/86)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, C. Straßberger and F. Römisch, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Springer, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2013 (Case R 1866/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roeckl Sporthandschuhe and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                  Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-607/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-447/14: NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/30

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-447/14: NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission
      (Case C-607/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (represented by: B. Creve, advocaat, M. Kofmann, advokat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

                  —

                  annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part;

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

                  —

                  order a measure of organisation; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea: The General Court erroneously determined the territorial scope of the infringement.
      Second plea: The General Court committed errors in law when assessing the scope of the SCI (2) and the scope of NKT’s participation in and awareness of the SCI.
      Third plea: The General Court committed errors in law when holding that the appellants’ rights of defence had not been infringed.
      Fourth plea: The General Court committed errors in law when rejecting the appellants’ plea for an annulment or reduction of the fine.

         (1)  Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

         (2)  Single and continuous infringement.


title: Case C-479/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2018 — KL and Others v UNIQUA Österreich Versicherungen and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2018 — KL and Others v UNIQUA Österreich Versicherungen and Others
      (Case C-479/18)
      (2018/C 427/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: KL, LK, MJ, NI

         Defendants: UNIQUA Österreich Versicherungen, DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, (2) or Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) or Article 185(1), in conjunction with Article 186(1), of Directive 2009/138/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of incorrect information concerning the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the period for exercising the right of cancellation does not begin to run if the insurance undertaking specifies in the information that the right of cancellation must be exercised in written form, even though under national law it is possible to cancel in any form?

                  2.

                  (If the first question is answered in the affirmative:)
                  Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded, the period for exercising the right of cancellation begins to run at the point in time at which the policy-holder was informed — by whatever means — of his right of cancellation?

                  3.

                  Must Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of Directive 2002/83/EC be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the policy-holder’s right to cancel the contract expires at the latest after the surrender value has been paid out to him by reason of his having given notice to terminate the contract and thus the contracting parties have performed in full the obligations under the contract?

                  4.

                  (If the first question is answered in the affirmative and/or the third question is answered in the negative:)
                  Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, or Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, or Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the surrender value (the current value for the insurance calculated in accordance with the accepted rules of actuarial calculations) must be reimbursed to the policy-holder if he exercises his right of cancellation?

                  5.

                  (If the fourth question is to be dealt with and is answered in the affirmative:)
                  Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, or Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, or Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of exercise of the right of cancellation, the claim to a flat rate of interest for the reimbursed premiums due to limitation may be restricted to the proportion covering the period of the last three years prior to the bringing of the action?

         (1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

         (2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

         (3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).

         (4)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).


title: Case T-819/17: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — 2016 appraisal — Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/77

      Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO
      (Case T-819/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - 2016 appraisal - Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/103)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU requesting that the General Court order EUIPO to delete from the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2016 all criticism concerning the applicant’s communication style, inasmuch as it constitutes a misrepresentation and infringes the applicant’s fundamental right to express ideas and opinions freely.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  WH shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case C-535/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — IL and Others v Land North Rhine-Westphalia

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — IL and Others v Land North Rhine-Westphalia
      (Case C-535/18)
      (2018/C 427/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: IL, JK, KJ, LI, NG, MH, OF, PE, joint heirs of Ms QD (RC and SB), TA, UZ, VY, WX

         Defendant: Land North Rhine-Westphalia

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) — hereinafter referred to as: EIA Directive — be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law is consistent with it, according to which a claimant who is not recognised as an environmental association is entitled to apply for the annulment of a decision due to a procedural defect only if the procedural defect has denied the claimant itself the opportunity — as provided for by statute — of participating in the decision-making process?

                  2.

                              (a)

                              Must Article 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (2) most recently amended by Article 1 of Directive 2014/101/EU of the Commission of 30 October 2014 (3) — hereinafter referred to as: Water Framework Directive (WFD) — be interpreted as meaning that it does not only include substantive criteria for examination but, in addition, specifications regarding the regulatory approval procedure?

                              (b)

                              If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative,

                        must the involvement of the public pursuant to Article 6 EIA Directive always relate to the documents regarding the assessment under water law in the aforementioned sense, or is it permissible to differentiate with regard to the time of the creation of the document and its complexity?

                  3.

                  Must the term ‘deterioration of the status of a body of groundwater’ in Article 4(1)(b)(i) WFD be interpreted as meaning that a deterioration of the chemical status of a body of groundwater exists as soon as at least one environmental quality standard for one parameter is exceeded for project-related reasons and that irrespective of that, if the relevant threshold for one pollutant has already been exceeded, any additional (measurable) increase of the concentration constitutes a deterioration?

                  4.

                              (a)

                              Taking into account its binding nature (Article 288 TFEU) and the guarantee of effective legal protection (Article 19 TEU), must Article 4 WFD be interpreted as meaning that all members of the public concerned by a project who assert that the approval of a project breaches their rights are also entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

                              (b)

                              If Question (a) is answered in the negative —

                        taking into account its objective — must Article 4 WFD be interpreted as meaning that at least such claimants who maintain domestic wells for their private water supply in geographical proximity to the planned road are entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ 2014 L 311, p. 32.


title: Case T-593/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — BS (Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality) v Parliament

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/99

      Action brought on 28 September 2018 —  BS (1) v Parliament
      (Case T-593/18)
      (2018/C 427/130)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: BS (2) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the notice of amendment No. 15, dated 10 August 2017, concerning the applicant’s pension rights;

                  —

                  annul, so far as necessary, the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and EUR 4 815,16 as shown on the pension slip for December 2017;

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union inasmuch as the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in so far as the defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and failed to observe the applicant’s right to be heard and his right to have access to his file.

         (1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality

         (2)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality


title: Case T-561/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark bags2GO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/59

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO)
      (Case T-561/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark bags2GO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/76)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: L-Shop-Team GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: A. Sautter, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Mensing and A. Söder, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 1650/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign bags2GO as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders L-Shop-Team GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-536/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — XW v Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — XW v Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz
      (Case C-536/18)
      (2018/C 427/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: XW

         Defendant: Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz

         Question referred

      May a portion of the salary costs of staff employed in the administration of and in the collection of fees for official inspections be taken into account in a fee collected in accordance with Article 27(2) and (4) of, in conjunction with Annex VI to, Regulation No 882/2004? (1)

         (1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).


title: Case T-597/18: Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Hermann Albers v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/99

      Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Hermann Albers v Commission
      (Case T-597/18)
      (2018/C 427/131)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint regarding the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).
      The action is based on a single plea, namely that, contrary to the view taken by the Commission, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG represents new aid which is subject to an obligation of notification.


               10.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/6

      Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
      (Case E-3/18)
      (2019/C 9/07)
      An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
      The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

                  1.

                  Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

                  2.

                  Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

                  —

                  The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 23 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 21 February 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes, as referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

                  —

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


               10.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/7

      Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
      (Case E-4/18)
      (2019/C 9/08)
      An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
      The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

                  1.

                  Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

                  2.

                  Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

                  —

                  The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 23 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 21 February 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR), as referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

                  —

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-651/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun — Earlier Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Informed user — Designer’s degree of freedom — Individual character — Saturation of the state of the art — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Expediency of oral proceedings — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)
      (Case T-651/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a paint spray gun - Earlier Community designs - Ground for invalidity - Informed user - Designer’s degree of freedom - Individual character - Saturation of the state of the art - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Expediency of oral proceedings - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))
      (2019/C 44/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Manhaeve and G. Glas, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 914/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools and Sata.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-681/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ‘Khadi’ — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)
      (Case T-681/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Mark containing badges, emblems or escutcheons - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 (Case R 2083/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-682/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen)
      (Case T-682/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark ‘khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2085/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-683/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)
      (Case T-683/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2086/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-702/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
      (Case T-702/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2782/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2782/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

                  3.

                  Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case T-703/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi — Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
      (Case T-703/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier United Kingdom certification word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Papouis Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2017 (Case R 2924/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Papouis Dairies Ltd;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Cyprus;

                  3.

                  Orders Papouis Dairies to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-724/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VIANEL — Earlier EU word mark VIANIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)
      (Case T-724/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VIANEL - Earlier EU word mark VIANIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: The Vianel Group LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Perrichon, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viania Dessous GmbH (Mössingen, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 285/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Viania Dessous and The Vianel Group.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders The Vianel Group LLC to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the proceedings before the General Court.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-763/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)
      (Case T-763/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark welly - Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersnack Group and Septona.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-824/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark H 2 O+ — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)
      (Case T-824/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark H 2 O+ - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 44/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Walicka, then by S. Palmero Cabezas and H.J. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 (Case R 499/2017-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark H 2 O+.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders H2O Plus LLC to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-826/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FYYO — Earlier EU word mark FIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Fio Systems (FYYO)
      (Case T-826/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FYYO - Earlier EU word mark FIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 44/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen and H. Lindner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fio Systems AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Hänsel, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 2337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fio Systems and TeamBank Nürnberg.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-9/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)
      (Case T-9/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 44/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 (Case R 1090/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Addiko Bank AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-59/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)
      (Case T-59/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 44/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 280/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Endoceutics.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-78/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN — Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN)
      (Case T-78/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN - Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 44/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: AB Mauri Italy SpA (Casteggio, Italy) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and G. Hussey, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lesaffre et Cie (Paris, France)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between AB Mauri Italy and Lesaffre et Cie.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016–4) in so far as it rejected, for lack of similarity with ‘yeast’ in Class 30, the opposition to registration of the word mark FERMIN in respect of some of the goods in the same class, namely ‘mixes for bakery products; bakery mixtures (ready-to-use bread mixes); yeast- based preparations for pastries and pizza dough’;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by AB Mauri Italy SpA.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-585/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/47

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission
      (Case T-585/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/60)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Cheverny Investments Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, R. Staab and S. Rasch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R.Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-586/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/48

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 – Oppenheim v Commission
      (Case T-586/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: initially, W. Deselaers, J. Brückner and M. Haisch, then, T. Bernard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie AG & Co. KGaA;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-610/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/49

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Wagon Automotive Nagold v Commission
      (Case T-610/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/62)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: initially, T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, then, T. Hackemann and F. von Bredow, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Wagon Automotive Nagold GmbH;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-612/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/50

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission
      (Case T-612/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Treofan Holdings GmbH (Raunheim, Germany), Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Neunkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J de Weerth, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Treofan Holdings GmbH and Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-613/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — VMS Deutschland v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/50

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — VMS Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-613/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/64)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: initially, D. Pohl, G. Burwitz, M. Maier and P. Werner, then, D. Pohl and G. Burwitz, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by VMS Deutschland Holdings GmbH;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-619/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/51

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — CB v Commission
      (Case T-619/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: CB (represented by: initially, T. Hackemann and H. Horstkotte, then, T. Hackemann and F. von Bredow, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by CB;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-621/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/52

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission
      (Case T-621/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/66)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: SiNN GmbH, formerly SinnLeffers GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: initially, C. Rupp and H. Wunderlich, then, H. Wunderlich and T. Engelmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by SiNN GmbH;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-626/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/53

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Sky Deutschland and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen v Commission
      (Case T-626/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Sky Deutschland GmbH, formerly Sky Deutschland AG, (Unterföhring, Germany), and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG (Unterföhring) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, then, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll-Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll-Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Sky Deutschland GmbH and Sky Deutschland Fernsehen GmbH & Co. KG;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-628/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/54

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord v Commission
      (Case T-628/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Biogas Nord AG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord AG;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.