title: Case T-402/16: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark berlinGas — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/30

         Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
   (Case T-402/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark berlinGas - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law))
   (2017/C 392/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and D. Hanf, agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 (Case R 291/2016-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign berlinGas as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-56/16: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/40

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
   (Case T-56/16) (1)

   (2017/C 392/50)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-337/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACCINO — Earlier EU word mark VERSACE — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)
   (Case T-337/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACCINO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 392/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1172/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-719/16: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinWärme) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark berlinWärme — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/31

         Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinWärme)
   (Case T-719/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark berlinWärme - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law))
   (2017/C 392/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and D. Hanf, agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2016 (Case R 618/2016-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign berlinWärme as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 411, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-149/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘redundancies’ — Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ — Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/8

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
   (Case C-149/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions))
   (2017/C 392/11)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

      Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to engage in the consultations provided for in Article 2 when it intends, to the detriment of the employees, to make a unilateral amendment to the terms of remuneration which, if refused by the employees, will result in termination of the employment relationship, to the extent that the conditions laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled, which is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-158/16: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Barnett and Others v EESC

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/40

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Barnett and Others v EESC
   (Case T-158/16) (1)

   (2017/C 392/51)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Appeal Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-171/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Trayan Beshkov v Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA — Scope — Taking into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings, a previous conviction handed down in another Member State, in order to impose an overall sentence — National procedure for prior recognition of that conviction — Altering the arrangements for enforcing the sentence imposed in the other Member State)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Trayan Beshkov v Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura
   (Case C-171/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Scope - Taking into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings, a previous conviction handed down in another Member State, in order to impose an overall sentence - National procedure for prior recognition of that conviction - Altering the arrangements for enforcing the sentence imposed in the other Member State))
   (2017/C 392/12)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski Rayonen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trayan Beshkov

      Defendant: Sofiyska rayonna prokuratura

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a national procedure that is concerned with the imposition, for the purposes of execution, of an overall custodial sentence that takes into account the sentence imposed on that person by a national court and also that imposed following a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State against the same person for different facts.

               2.

               Framework Decision 2008/675 must be interpreted as precluding the possibility that it should be a prerequisite of account being taken, in a Member State, of a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State that a national procedure for prior recognition of that conviction by the courts with jurisdiction in the former Member State, such as that laid down in Articles 463 to 466 of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), be implemented.

               3.

               Article 3(3) of Framework Decision 2008/675 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that a national court, seised of an application for the imposition, for the purposes of execution, of an overall custodial sentence that takes into account, inter alia, the sentence imposed following a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State, may alter for that purpose the arrangements for execution of that latter sentence.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-299/16: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Scheffler v EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/40

         Order of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Scheffler v EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)
   (Case T-299/16) (1)

   (2017/C 392/52)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-40/17: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO (Here Global (h) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/31

         Order of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO (Here Global (h)
   (Case T-40/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 392/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Habermaaß GmbH AG (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, H. Gauß and E. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo and M. Tóhatí, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Here Global BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Erkkilä, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2016 (Case R 53/2016-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Here Global BV and Habermaaß GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Habermaaß GmbH and Here Global BV shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-18/17: Order of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/41

         Order of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-18/17) (1)

   (2017/C 392/53)
   Language of the case: Czech
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case C-429/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1) and Article 2 — Concept of ‘redundancies’ — Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ — Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions — Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/10

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi
   (Case C-429/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and Article 2 - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions - Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies))
   (2017/C 392/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa, Jolanta Deszczka, Ewa Kowalska, Anna Stańczyk, Marta Krzesińska, Marzena Musielak, Halina Kaźmierska, Joanna Siedlecka, Szymon Wiaderek, Izabela Grzegora

      Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that a unilateral amendment of conditions of pay by the employer, to the detriment of the employees, which, in the event of an employee’s refusal, entails the termination of the contract of employment is capable of being regarded as a ‘redundancy’ within the meaning of that provision, and Article 2 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to carry out the consultations provided for in Article 2 where he contemplates effecting such a unilateral amendment of the conditions of pay, in so far as the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the directive are satisfied, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-441/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable person residing in another Member State — Refund of VAT charged on imported goods — Conditions — Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities — Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation)

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/10

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
   (Case C-441/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Taxable person residing in another Member State - Refund of VAT charged on imported goods - Conditions - Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities - Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation))
   (2017/C 392/14)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SMS group GmbH

      Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

      Operative part of the judgment

   Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, read in conjunction with Article 170 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by a Member State to refund the value added tax paid on the importation of goods to a taxable person who is not established on its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings where, at the time of importation, the performance of the contract in connection with which the taxable person purchased and imported those goods was suspended, the transaction for which they were intended to be used was in the end not carried out, and the taxable person did not provide proof of their subsequent movements.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case C-35/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 24 January 2017 — Saferoad Grawil sp. z o.o., Saferoad Kabex sp. z o.o. v Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Oddział w Poznaniu

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 24 January 2017 — Saferoad Grawil sp. z o.o., Saferoad Kabex sp. z o.o. v Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Oddział w Poznaniu
   (Case C-35/17)
   (2017/C 392/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Saferoad Grawil sp. z o.o., Saferoad Kabex sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Oddział w Poznaniu

      Interveners: Przedsiębiorstwo Budownictwa Drogowego S.A., Zakład Bezpieczeństwa Ruchu Drogowego (Zaberd) S.A.
   By order of 13 July 2017, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) ruled that Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, (1) the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a public tendering procedure as a result of non-compliance, on the part of that operator, with an obligation which does not follow expressly from the documents relating to that procedure.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-463/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by Ori Martin SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 1 June 2017 in Case T-797/16 Ori Martin v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/12

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by Ori Martin SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 1 June 2017 in Case T-797/16 Ori Martin v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-463/17 P)
   (2017/C 392/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ori Martin SA (represented by: G. Belotti, avvocato)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) should, reversing the General Court’s order dismissing its action in Case T-797/16 (Ori Martin spa v Court of Justice of the European Union), rule that in Cases C-490/15P and C-505/15P (EU:C:2016:678) the Court itself (Sixth Chamber) infringed ORI’s right to a fair trial in accordance with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and, consequently, make an order for compensation for damage.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action dismissed by the General Court by the order at issue was based on a single plea in law: infringement by the Court (Sixth Chamber) of Article 47 of the Charter, in particular, infringement of ORI’s right to a fair trial. ORI claimed that it is a requirement of this general principle of law that a company that has been definitively penalised should understand what it is alleged specifically to have done, so that, inter alia, it may avoid reoffending. This is not the situation in the present case, ORI still not knowing the actual ground for the order made against it.
   The General Court dismissed ORI’s action as manifestly devoid of any basis in law, on the assumption that the application for compensation was not based on the excessive duration of the proceedings, which could have constituted a breach of Article 47 of the Charter, but on an alleged illegality vitiating the judgment. The General Court did not rule on the question of whether or not breach of the right to a fair trial, expressly invoked by the applicant, was covered by Article 47 of the Charter or not. In this respect, the issues underlying the present appeal are of interest beyond the present case.
   ORI contests the order of the General Court in that the right to a fair trial, here in the form of any person’s right to know the grounds for an order made against him, is an inalienable right of the persons on whom penalties are imposed in the field of competition, the essentially penal nature of which is now recognised by settled case-law. The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States; it has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and reiterated in Article 47 of the Charter.
   Moreover, ORI emphasises the importance of the question asked, given the personal nature of liability in the field of competition (1) as set out in Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 EC and given the fact that neither strict liability nor culpa in vigilando has any place in EU competition law.
   As a result, no one may be penalised without fault or owing to lack of vigilance; no procedural law principle of reversal of the burden of proof can invalidate those conclusions.

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


title: Case C-485/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V. v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V. v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH
   (Case C-485/17)
   (2017/C 392/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V.

      Defendant: Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a trade fair stand in a hall which is used by a trader for the purpose of selling his products during a trade fair taking place for a few days each year constitute immovable retail premises within the meaning of Article 2(9)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) or movable retail premises within the meaning of Article 2(9)(b) of Directive 2011/83/EU?

               2.

               If it constitutes movable retail premises:
               Is the question whether a trader carries out his activity ‘on a usual basis’ on trade fair stands to be answered by reference to

                           (a)

                           how the trader organises his activity or

                           (b)

                           whether the consumer can expect to conclude a contract for the goods concerned at the trade fair in question?

               3.

               If, in the answer to the second question, the perspective of the consumer is relevant (Question 2(b)):
               In connection with the question whether the consumer can expect to conclude a contract for the goods concerned at the trade fair in question, must regard be had to how the trade fair is presented to the public or to how the trade fair actually appears to the consumer when he makes the contractual declaration?

      (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.


title: Case C-501/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels
   (Case C-501/17)
   (2017/C 392/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

      Respondent: Wolfgang Pauels

      Question referred

   Is the damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a screw lying on the take-off or landing runway (foreign object damage/FOD) an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-516/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 August 2017 — Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 August 2017 — Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck
   (Case C-516/17)
   (2017/C 392/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spiegel Online GmbH

      Defendant: Volker Beck

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of EU law on the exceptions or limitations to the rights concerned laid down in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law?

               2.

               In which way are the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when determining the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC to the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and communicate to the public their works, including the right to make their works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC)?

               3.

               Can the fundamental rights of freedom of information (second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Charter) or freedom of the media (Article 11(2) of the Charter) justify exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and communicate to the public their works, including the right to make their works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC), beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

               4.

               Is the making available to the public of copyright-protected works on the web portal of a press undertaking to be excluded from consideration as the reporting of current events not requiring permission as provided for in Article 5(3)(c), second case, of Directive 2001/29/EC, because it was possible and reasonable for the press undertaking to obtain the author’s consent before making his works available to the public?

               5.

               Is there no publication for quotation purposes under Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC if quoted textual works or parts thereof are not inextricably integrated into the new text — for example, by way of insertions or footnotes — but are made available to the public on the Internet by means of a link in the form of PDF files which can be downloaded independently of the new text?

               6.

               In determining when a work within the meaning of Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC has already been made available lawfully to the public, should the focus be on whether that work in its specific form was published previously with the author’s consent?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case C-517/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2017 — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               20.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2017 — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-517/17)
   (2017/C 392/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milkiyas Addis

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case, Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case, Italy), in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) or under the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC (2) that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case, Italy), does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not, in and of itself, infringe Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons qualifying as refugees in the Member State in which they so qualify (in this case, Italy)

                           (a)

                           do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State, and they

                           (b)

                           are admittedly, granted the rights provided for under Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the related benefits or benefits under family or social networks which replace or supplement State benefits?

               3.

               Does the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU or the rule in the first sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2005/85/EC that preceded it preclude the application of a national provision under which the failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant in the case where the determining authority rejects an asylum application as inadmissible, in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU or the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC that preceded it, does not result in that decision being annulled by reason of that failure if the applicant has an opportunity in the judicial proceedings to set out all the circumstances mitigating against a decision of inadmissibility and, even having regard to those submissions, no other decision can be taken in the case?

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

      (2)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.


title: Case C-181/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport policy — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Road transport operator — Licence for public transport — Conditions for grant — Article 3(1) and (2) — Article 5(b) — Number of vehicles required — National legislation — Stricter conditions for grant — Higher minimum number of vehicles)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-181/17) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport policy - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Road transport operator - Licence for public transport - Conditions for grant - Article 3(1) and (2) - Article 5(b) - Number of vehicles required - National legislation - Stricter conditions for grant - Higher minimum number of vehicles))
   (2018/C 123/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: V. Ester Casas, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring undertakings to have at least three vehicles in order to obtain a public transport licence, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-5/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-5/18)
   (2018/C 123/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of JUREX GmbH

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law (rules governing court procedure and laws governing service in administrative procedures — Paragraph 33(1) of the Postgesetz (Law on postal services) — a universal postal service under Article 3(4) of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 (1) (the Postal Directive)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
               Is an undertaking which effects the formal service of documents pursuant to provisions of public law a ‘universal service provider’, within the meaning of Article 2.13 of Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997, providing a universal postal service in whole or in part, and is such service exempt from tax under Article 132(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-731/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Sergiy Klyuyev v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Duty to state reasons — Legal basis — Factual basis — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Right to property — Right to reputation — Proportionality — Protection of fundamental rights equivalent to that guaranteed in the European Union — Plea of illegality)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — Sergiy Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-731/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Duty to state reasons - Legal basis - Factual basis - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to property - Right to reputation - Proportionality - Protection of fundamental rights equivalent to that guaranteed in the European Union - Plea of illegality))
   (2018/C 123/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergiy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, T. Garner, Solicitors, B. Kennelly QC and J. Pobjoy, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1781 of 5 October 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 259, p. 23) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1777 of 5 October 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 259, p. 3), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1) and (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Mr Sergiy Klyuyev’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Article 1 of Decision 2017/381 and of Article 1 of Implementing Regulation 2017/374 to be maintained in respect of Mr Klyuyev until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of dismissal of that appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Mr Klyuyev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the claims for annulment made in the application and in the first statement of modification;

               5.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Klyuyev in relation to the claim for annulment in part of Decision 2017/381 and of Implementing Regulation 2017/374 made in the second statement of modification.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case C-307/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 131 — Article 146(1)(b) — Article 147 — Exemptions on exportation — Article 273 — Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie
   (Case C-307/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 131 - Article 146(1)(b) - Article 147 - Exemptions on exportation - Article 273 - Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers))
   (2018/C 142/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 131, Article 146(1)(b) and Articles 147 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the context of a supply of goods for export to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the vendor, a taxable person, must have attained a minimum level of turnover in the preceding tax year, or have concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund VAT to travellers, where the mere failure to meet those conditions results in the definitive loss for the vendor of the exemption in relation to that supply.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-701/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Appeal brought on 24 October 2017 by Vassil Monev Valkov against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2017 in Case T-558/17: Valkov / European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-701/17 P)
   (2018/C 142/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Vassil Monev Valkov (represented by: K. Mladenova, адвокат)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights, Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
   By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-99/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/8

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-99/18 P)
   (2018/C 182/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Harald Prantner and Daniel Giersch

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 30 November 2017 (T-475/16);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court is based on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The judgment is inadequately reasoned. Not all of the factual circumstances, the interplay of which is essential to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, were taken into account. This constitutes an error of law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1)).


title: Case T-386/17: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Лидер — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/30

         Order of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер)
   (Case T-386/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Лидер - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2018/C 190/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 (Case R 2066/2016-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Лидер as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case C-315/17: Order of the Court (Sixth chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Zaragoza — Spain) — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Rules for horizontal career progression — Grant of remuneration supplement — National legislation excluding non-established civil servants — Definition of ‘employment conditions’ and ‘objective reasons’)

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Zaragoza — Spain) — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza
   (Case C-315/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Rules for horizontal career progression - Grant of remuneration supplement - National legislation excluding non-established civil servants - Definition of ‘employment conditions’ and ‘objective reasons’))
   (2018/C 190/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Zaragoza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pilar Centeno Meléndez

      Defendant: Universidad de Zaragoza

      Operative part of the order

   Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts participation in the regime for horizontal career progression of administrative and technical staff of the University of Zaragoza (Spain) and, accordingly, receipt of the remuneration supplement ensuing from participation in that regime to career civil servants and permanent contract agents, to the exclusion, in particular, of individuals employed as non-established civil servants.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-376/17: Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Arkadiusz Piotr Lipinski
   (Case C-376/17) (1)

   (2018/C 190/32)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-383/17: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-383/17) (1)

   (2018/C 190/33)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201805250611897332018/C 200/622472018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180416484922Case T-247/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Lucena Ramírez v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4820120180416EN0062482492Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Lucena Ramírez v Council
   (Case T-247/18)2018/C 200/62Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Tibisay Lucena Ramírez (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

            —

            order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s actions and policies have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.


201806010031915492018/C 211/281952018TC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180316222321Case T-195/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Talanton v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2112018EN2210120180316EN0028221232Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-195/18)2018/C 211/28Language of the case: Greek
      Parties

      Applicant: Talanton, Anonimi Emporiki — Simvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Palaio Faliro, Grecia) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            Order an expert report on the deficiencies in the inspection carried out on behalf of the defendant;

            —

            Establish, first, that (a) the debit note 3241801228, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, by means of which the defendant requests the payment of EUR 481835,56, in respect of works contract FP7-215952 PERFORM, based on the conclusions of audit inspection 11-ΒΑ135-006, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations, given that the eligible costs for the contract in question amount to EUR 605217, in respect of which the Union’s support amounts to EUR 490711, and that the applicant must reimburse to the defendant the amount of EUR 21171, and not the amount of EUR 481835,56, and, (b) the debit note 3241801229, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, and in which the defendant requests payment of EUR 29694,10by way of compensation, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, based on performance of the contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:
            the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principle of good faith, in so far as the audit inspection provided for was carried out unlawfully by a third party who is not related to the staff of the contractor appointed by the defendant, nor to its expressly approved subcontractors, in respect of whom, during the inspection, issues of impartiality were raised, and acted wrongfully.

            2.

            Second plea in law based on the arbitration clause:

                     —

                     the applicant adduced sufficient alternative evidence which includes sworn statements, relevant letters from the applicant’s staff, documents produced during the inspection, which were at no time refuted, and which were not taken into account by the defendant;

                     —

                     the applicant sets out in detail thirty-nine reasons why the inspection report is inaccurate, deficient, unreliable and leads to incorrect conclusions.


201806080261931512018/C 221/382372018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180409323211Case T-237/18: Action brought on 9 April 2018 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3210120180409EN0038321321Action brought on 9 April 2018 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)
   (Case T-237/18)2018/C 221/38Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Martini-Sportswear GmbH (Annaberg, Austria) (represented by: W. Lang, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olympique de Marseille SASP (Marseille, France).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark M — International registration designating the European Union No 1 238 066

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2018 in Case R 1755/2017-4.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the Decision of the Opposition Division of 25 May 2017 invalid;

            —

            revise the contested decision, so that the Opposition is to be dismissed;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806080421931542018/C 221/102222018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL2018031891021Case C-222/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 March 2018 — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN910120180318EN001091102Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 March 2018 — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet
   (Case C-222/18)2018/C 221/10Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

      Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

      Question referred

   Must Articles 3(k) and 11(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (
         1
      ) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, which distinguishes between two categories of prescriptions and, only in the case of one of those categories, allows medicinal products to be dispensed to a doctor who exercises his healthcare activity in a State other than the Member State concerned, contrary to the mutual recognition of prescriptions and to the freedom to provide services, and therefore incompatible therewith?
   (
         1
      )	OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 45.


201806080551931472018/C 221/112312018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180403101011Case C-231/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Case involving an administrative fine imposed on NK
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1010120180403EN0011101101Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Case involving an administrative fine imposed on NK
   (Case C-231/18)2018/C 221/11Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

   NK
   Other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Oldenburg); Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Oldenburg (Commercial Regulatory Authority, Oldenburg)

      Questions referred

            1.

            Can a livestock wholesaler who purchases live animals from a farmer and transports them within a distance of up to 100 km to a slaughterhouse, to which he sells the animals, rely on the exception provided for in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport — ‘vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses within a radius of up to 100 km’ — because the purchase from the farmer involves a ‘market’ within the meaning of this provision or the cattle trade enterprise is itself regarded as a ‘market’?
            If it does not involve a ‘market’ within the meaning of this provision:

            2.

            Can the livestock wholesaler who purchases live animals from a farmer and transports them within a radius of up to 100 km to a slaughterhouse, to which he sells the animals, rely on this exception by analogy to the aforesaid rule?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).


201806080161931422018/C 221/206622016TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503181811Case T-662/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Styriagra — Earlier EU word mark VIAGRA — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1810120180503EN0020181181Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)
   (Case T-662/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Styriagra — Earlier EU word mark VIAGRA — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/20Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented initially by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, and subsequently by T. Schafft, lawyers)

      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: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 (Case R 724/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Gall Pharma.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Gall Pharma GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


201806080241931502018/C 221/402572018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424343521Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3410120180424EN0040341352Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
   (Case T-257/18)2018/C 221/40Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Suria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke. lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (notified under document C(2017) 5877); (
                  1
               )

            —

            in the alternative:

                     —

                     annul the contested decision to the extent that it finds Measure 1 to contain State aid and orders its recovery with interest from the applicant; and/or

                     —

                     annul the contested decision insofar as it determines the amount of unlawful but compatible aid received by the applicant contained in Measure 4 to amount to EUR 3902461,30, and the illegal aid to be recovered with interest from the applicant to amount to EUR 3958109,70;

            —

            order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 involves a transfer of State resources.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant. In the alternative, it is alleged that the Commission failed to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible State aid, if any, arising from Measure 1, in violation of Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation. (
                  2
               )

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation regarding Measure 1 by ordering recovery because such recovery violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 4 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation by failing to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible aid, if any, arising from Measure 4.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25.
   (
         2
      )	Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


201806080321931332018/C 221/2222017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503192021Case T-2/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — J-M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark MASSI — Earlier national word mark MASI — Article 56(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1910120180503EN0022191202Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — J-M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)
   (Case T-2/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark MASSI — Earlier national word mark MASI — Article 56(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 63(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention)’2018/C 221/22Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alberto Masi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Ceriani, S. Giudici and A. Ferreri, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (R 793/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Masi and J-M.-E.V. e hijos.

      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 4 October 2016 (R 793/2015-1);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL;

            3.

            Orders Mr Alberto Masi to bear his own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


201806080201931232018/C 221/412592018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423353511Case T-259/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3510120180423EN0041351351Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
   (Case T-259/18)2018/C 221/41Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. (Tarnobrzeg, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EuroChem Agro GmbH (Mannheim, Germany).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Unifoska — Application for registration No 015017841

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 1503/2017-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration;
            or

            —

            alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 01501784 ‘Unifoska’ for all goods in class 1 and the trademark shall be registered;

            —

            award the costs in the Applicant's favor.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

            —

            Infringement of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and principle of legal certainty.


201806080281931322018/C 221/422642018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427363611Case T-264/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (mo.da)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3610120180427EN0042361361Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (mo.da)
   (Case T-264/18)2018/C 221/42Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element mo.da — Application for registration No 16 430 035

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 in Case R 2065/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.


201806080441931442018/C 221/132722018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180420111222Case C-272/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2018 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1120120180420EN0013112122Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2018 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG
   (Case C-272/18)2018/C 221/13Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Defendant: TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG

      Questions referred

            1.

            Does the exclusion from the scope of the legislation provided for in Article 1(2)(e) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations of 19 June 1980 (‘the Rome Convention’) and in Article 1(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘the Rome I Regulation’) (
                  1
               ) also apply to agreements between a beneficiary and a fiduciary who holds an interest in a limited partnership on behalf of the beneficiary, particularly where the partnership agreements and the fiduciary agreements are interwoven?

            2.

            If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
            Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive No 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘the Unfair Contract Terms Directive’) (
                  2
               ) to be interpreted as meaning that a clause in a fiduciary agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer concerning the management of an interest in a limited partnership, which was not individually negotiated and which provides that the law of the State in which the limited partnership has its seat is to apply, is unfair if the sole purpose of the fiduciary agreement is the management of the limited partnership interest and the beneficiary is granted the rights and obligations of a direct partner?

            3.

            If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative:
            Does this answer still hold if, in addition, the consumer’s subscription application was signed in his State of residence, the professional also provides information on the internet about the limited partnership interest and a payment agency has been established in the consumer’s State, to which the consumer must pay his subscription monies, even though the professional has no right to give directions as to that bank account? Does it make a difference whether the Rome I Regulation or the Rome Convention is applicable?

            4.

            If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
            Does this answer still hold if, in addition, the consumer’s subscription application was signed in his State of residence, the professional also provides information on the internet about the limited partnership interest and a payment agency has been established in the consumer’s State, to which the consumer must pay his subscription monies, even though the professional has no right to give directions as to that bank account? Does it make a difference whether the Rome I Regulation or the Rome Convention is applicable?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


201806080371931252018/C 221/241872017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504212111Case T-187/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Mega Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2110120180504EN0024211211Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)
   (Case T-187/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Mega Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/24Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 442/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Mega Liner as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 442/2016–1);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


201806150771955392018/C 231/422552018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423333421Case T-255/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — US v ECB
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3310120180423EN0042331342Action brought on 23 April 2018 — US v ECB
   (Case T-255/18)2018/C 231/42Language of the case: French
      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

            —

            Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

      consequently:

            —

            annul the decision not to convert the applicant’s contract, dated 13 June 2017;

            —

            annul the decision of the ECB of 11 October 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application for administrative review of 11 August 2017;

            —

            annul the decision of the ECB of 13 February 2018, served on the applicant the same day, rejecting his grievance procedure instituted on 7 December 2017;

            —

            award damages in respect of the losses suffered;

            —

            order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality as regards the conversion policy, since that policy infringes Article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment and Article 2.0 of the Staff Rules and was adopted contrary to the hierarchy of norms.

            2.

            Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality, in that Article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment and Article 2.0 of the Staff Rules infringe Council Directive [1999]/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and recital 6 of the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work.

            3.

            Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality of the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) Guidelines, in that those guidelines infringe the obligation to state reasons and the principle of legal certainty.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards, firstly, the salary steps awarded to the applicant; secondly, his ‘continuous development’ and, thirdly, the maintenance of the business needs for the applicant’s knowledge, aptitudes and specific skills.


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 April 2018 in Case E-7/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/29/EU)

text:
               9.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 24 April 2018
      in Case E-7/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/29/EU)

      (2018/C 280/04)
      In Case E-7/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and in any event has failed to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement the Act, as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 24 April 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


201807270402024702018/C 285/025572015CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806212211Case C-557/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Live-capturing and keeping — Species belonging to the finch family — Prohibition — National derogation regime — Member States’ power of derogation — Conditions)
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN210120180621EN00022121Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-557/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Live-capturing and keeping — Species belonging to the finch family — Prohibition — National derogation regime — Member States’ power of derogation — Conditions)’2018/C 285/02Language of the case: English
      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, acting as Agent, and by J. Bouckaert, advocaat, and L. Cassar Pullicino, avukat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that, by adopting a derogation regime allowing the live-capturing of seven species of wild finches (Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Linnet Carduelis cannabina, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Serin Serinus serinus and Siskin Carduelis spinus), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(a) and (e) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, read in conjunction with Article 9(1) of that directive;

            2.

            Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


201807270142025012018/C 285/503092018TC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517333311Case T-309/18: Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 EXTRA PLUS)
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN3310120180517EN0050331331Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 EXTRA PLUS)
   (Case T-309/18)2018/C 285/50Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Adis Higiene (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farecla Products Ltd (Ware, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘G3 EXTRA PLUS’ — European Union trade mark No 15 064 207

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2018 in Case R 2134/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95;

            —

            Infringement of Articles 94, 95 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

            —

            Infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


201807270442024482018/C 285/0352016CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806213311Case C-5/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1814 — Determination of legal basis — No taking into account of the effects of a measure — Article 192(1) TFEU — Article 192(2)(c) TFEU — Measures significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 15 TEU — Powers of the European Council — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Impact assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN310120180621EN00033131Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-5/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1814 — Determination of legal basis — No taking into account of the effects of a measure — Article 192(1) TFEU — Article 192(2)(c) TFEU — Measures significantly affecting a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 15 TEU — Powers of the European Council — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Impact assessment)’2018/C 285/03Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and K. Rudzińska, acting as Agents, and by I. Tatarewicz, ekspert)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, A. Sikora, and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Wolff, J. Nymann-Lindegren and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis and M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, J. Traband, T. Deleuil and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, A. C. Becker, E. White and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

            3.

            Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.