title: Case C-679/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 December 2017 — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, and Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 December 2017 — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, and Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts
   (Case C-679/17)
   (2018/C 094/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie; Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw

      Respondent: Johannes Huijbrechts

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a situation whereby an heir inherits a forest area located outside Belgium, which is managed in a sustainable manner, and which is not exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), whereas an heir who inherits a forest area in Flanders which is managed in a sustainable manner is exempt from inheritance tax under Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an impediment to the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

               2.

               Does the importance of the Flemish forest area, which is at issue here within the meaning of Article 55c of the Flemish Code on Inheritance Tax (now Article 2.7.6.0.3 of the Flemish Tax Code), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from inheritance tax is limited to forest areas in Flanders which are sustainably managed?


title: Case T-762/16: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2018 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA — Request relating to documents and to the identity of an initial requestor of access to information of a registrant of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Partial refusal of access — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/26

         Order of the General Court of 15 January 2018 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA
   (Case T-762/16) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA - Request relating to documents and to the identity of an initial requestor of access to information of a registrant of substances under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Partial refusal of access - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 094/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and E. Maurage, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents, and by G. Gilmore, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ATD/52/2016 of the ECHA of 26 September 2016, notified to the applicants on 28 September 2016, which granted partial access to the requested documents regarding an earlier application for access to documents held by the ECHA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

               3.

               The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) shall, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG.

               4.

               The EMA shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case T-28/18: Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)
   (Case T-28/18)
   (2018/C 094/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AC Milan SpA (Milan, Italy)

      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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AC MILAN’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 182 615

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 in Case R 356/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the EUTM application for the contested services; and

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case T-157/17: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO – Novartis (ILLUMINA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ILLUMINA — Revocation of the contested decision — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/26

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO – Novartis (ILLUMINA)
   (Case T-157/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ILLUMINA - Revocation of the contested decision - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 094/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2017 (Case R 1187/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Cristalfarma.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The request made by Cristalfarma Srl for a stay of the proceedings is rejected;

               2.

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

               3.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Cristalfarma;

               4.

               Novartis AG shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case C-687/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/7

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2017 by Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 September 2017 in Case T-138/15: Aanbestedingskalender BV and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-687/17 P)
   (2018/C 094/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV, Huisinga Beheer BV (represented by: C. T. Dekker, L. Fiorilli, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellant in Case T-138/15 and, consequently:

               —

               annul the decision at issue, in whole or in part; and/or

               —

               in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by appellants in Case T-138/15 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and failed to state a proper and consistent reasoning by considering and finding that the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected and the action therefore dismissed in its entirety because the Commission was entitled to find that the activities performed by TenderNed were not economic in nature and that the measure at issue in the present case did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
   The appellants claim that the economic or non-economic nature of TenderNed’s activities, especially its submission module, cannot be considered as facets of one single activity and that TenderNed’s submission module should be considered as economic in nature and as separable from public powers. The appellants claim that the General Court did not comply with the Court of Justice’s case-law regarding the test of whether an activity is economic or non-economic in nature.


title: Case T-30/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (seat cushion)
   (Case T-30/18)
   (2018/C 094/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: European Union design No 2 371 591-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in Case R 1017/2017-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision declaring the appeal inadmissible;

               —

               order the defendant to deal with the appeal and give a ruling thereon;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Error in law for the purpose of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 65 of Regulation No 2245/2002;

               —

               Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 6/2002


title: Case C-689/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen
   (Case C-689/17)
   (2018/C 094/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

      Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

      Question referred

   Are residues from damage to a ship at sea in the form of scrap metal and fire extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues on board the ship ‘waste generated on board vehicles, trains, aeroplanes and ships’ for the purposes of Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation No 1013/2006 (1)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-113/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right)
   (Case T-113/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 094/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arctic Cat Inc. (Thief River Falls, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Slazengers Ltd (Burnham, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2953/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Slazengers and Arctic Cat.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arctic Cat Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-178/17: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — W&O medical esthetics GmbH v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HYALSTYLE — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Request for the hearing of witnesses — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/27

         Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — W&O medical esthetics GmbH v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)
   (Case T-178/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HYALSTYLE - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Request for the hearing of witnesses - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))
   (2018/C 094/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: W&O medical esthetics GmbH (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: A. Finkentey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 (Case R 872/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between W&O medical esthetics and Fidia farmaceutici.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               W&O medical esthetics GmbH shall bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Fidia farmaceutici SpA.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-11/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/12

         Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council
   (Case C-11/18 P)
   (2018/C 094/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (represented by: M. Phelippeau, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15.
   The appellant requests the Court to grant the relief sought in the proceedings before the General Court below namely:

               —

               to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 (1); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 (2);

               —

               to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 (3), and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 (4);

               —

               to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 (5); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 (6),

         in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and to order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds.

      First, he claims that the General Court was wrong to consider that the Council of the European Union had identified actual and specific reasons justifying the imposition of restrictive measures on him and that the General Court was wrong to describe the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office as being a ‘high judicial authority’.

      Second, he submits that the General Court was wrong to consider that listing criterion contained in the acts at issue corresponded to the objectives of the CFSP.

      Third, he maintains that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the restrictive measure was not constitutive of an infringement of the rights to property.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 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 62 p. 25)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 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 62, p. 1)

      (3)  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);

      (4)  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);

      (5)  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);

      (6)  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)


title: Case T-46/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Comune di Milano v Council
   (Case T-46/18)
   (2018/C 094/46)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Comune di Milano (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Council decision of 20 November 2017 adopted in the margins of the 3579th meeting of the Council in its General Affairs formation, regarding the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMA’), published by means of a press release containing the report (Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)), Presse 65, provisional version, in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the objective pursued by the Council by means of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established selection criteria. By contrast, choosing the new seat of the EMA by drawing lots without any preliminary investigations being carried out is at variance with the objective, established while the procedural rules were being set, of selecting the best offer through a transparent decision-making process on the basis of technical assessments and specific predetermined criteria, and made it impossible for the lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam to be verified.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and transparency.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the contested decision is unlawful inasmuch as it is the outcome of a decision-making process that was characterised by (i) its lack of formal structure and methods designed to guarantee the necessary transparency, and (ii) its failure to take adequate consideration of the factors relevant to the assessment at issue.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council decision of 1 November 2009 on the adoption of its internal rules as well as of its rules of procedure of 31 October 2017.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the manner in which the voting was carried out and the result of the Decision of 20 November 2017 also constitute grounds for the unlawfulness of that decision, since they infringe specific rules which the Council ought to have respected.


title: Case T-784/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Application for interim relief — Public works contracts — Application for interim measures — Standstill period — Abnormally low bid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of the competing interests)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
   (Case T-784/17 R)
   ((Application for interim relief - Public works contracts - Application for interim measures - Standstill period - Abnormally low bid - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing of the competing interests))
   (2018/C 094/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a suspension of execution of the Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject the applicant’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for the Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to produce various documents.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Execution of the European Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject Strabag Belgium’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) is suspended.

               2.

               The remainder of the application is dismissed.

               3.

               The order of 6 December 2017, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R), is cancelled.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-21/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 11 January 2018 — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 11 January 2018 — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag
   (Case C-21/18)
   (2018/C 094/16)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin

      Defendant: Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (1) of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, etc., to be interpreted as meaning that Article 7(1)(e)(iii), in its new wording, is applicable to a court’s assessment of invalidity (under Article 52(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Regulation) that is made after the entry into force of the amendment, namely after 23 March 2016, even if the action concerns a declaration of invalidity where the action was brought before that date and therefore concerns a trade mark registered before that date?

               2.

               Is Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation, in the version applicable, to be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers a sign which consists of the two-dimensional representation of a two-dimensional product, for example fabric decorated with the sign in question?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, according to what principles is the wording ‘signs which consist exclusively of the shape (or another characteristic) which gives substantial value to the goods’ in Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Regulation to be interpreted, in a situation where the registration covers a wide range of classes of goods and goods and the sign may be affixed in different ways to the goods? Is the assessment to be made in accordance with more objective/general criteria, for example with the starting point of how the mark appears and how it is possible to affix it to different goods, that is to say without regard to the manner in which the trade mark proprietor may de facto have affixed or may intend to affix the sign to various goods?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 341, p. 21.


title: Case T-172/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2018 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission (State aid — Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2018 — Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni v Commission
   (Case T-172/16) (1)

   ((State aid - Reduced taxes and contributions due from undertakings located in areas affected by natural disasters occurring in Italy - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Potential beneficiary as the holder of an acquired right - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations))
   (2018/C 094/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni Srl (Catania, Italy) (represented by: E. Castorina, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, an application seeking ‘an EU-law-compatible interpretation’ of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/195 of 14 August 2015 on State aid measures SA.33083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN) implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to natural disasters (all sectors except agriculture) and SA.35083 (12/C) (ex 12/NN), implemented by Italy providing for reduced taxes and contributions linked to the earthquake in Abruzzo in 2009 (all sectors except agriculture) (OJ 2016 L 43, p. 1) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Centro Clinico e Diagnostico G.B. Morgagni Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13. 6. 2016.


title: Case C-692/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-692/17)
   (2018/C 094/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Question referred

   For the purposes of application of the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1), do the terms ‘granting’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘management of credit’ encompass the assignment for consideration to a third party of the positon held by a taxable person liable for VAT in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt, recognised by a judgment and resulting from the breach of a property agency agreement, plus VAT at the rate in force on the date of payment and the default interest already accrued or which may accrue until full payment?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

      OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-610/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO
   (Case T-610/16) (1)

   (2018/C 094/47)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-36/18: Action brought on 18 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/14

         Action brought on 18 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-36/18)
   (2018/C 094/17)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Τriantaphillou, M. Morales Puerta and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/89/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (1) or, in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive,

               —

               impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty payment of EUR 31 416 per day, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court,

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Under Article 15 of the directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning Member States are to transpose the directive into domestic law by 18 September 2016 and to inform the Commission thereof. The Commission has not, however, received any reply either to its letter of formal notice or to the reasoned opinion that it sent to the Hellenic Republic and seeks, consequently, recognition of the existence of the infringement by reason of a failure to transpose a binding directive in accordance with Article 258 TFEU.

               —

               To establish a procedure whereby the authorities of each Member State assess and organise human activities in the marine regions within their jurisdiction in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives, the Commission, in accordance with its binding practice concerning the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU, (2) seeks at the same time the imposition of a penalty payment amounting to EUR 31 416 per day, taking into consideration in particular the seriousness of the infringement (see the objectives of the directive which relate to the common fisheries policy, maritime shipping, the conservation and protection of the environment and energy, but also the impact on the economic operators concerned).

      (1)
         OJ 2014, L 25, p. 135.

      (2)
         OJ 2011, C 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-367/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO
   (Case T-367/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE - Earlier EU trade mark HOLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 094/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz and D. Oerter, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-820/17: Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)
   (Case T-820/17)
   (2018/C 094/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alimentos Friorizados, SA (Barberá del Vallés, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfrisa’ — Application for registration No 14 899 223

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 in Case R 956/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul EUIPO’s decisions dismissing the opposition and the proceedings brought by the applicant in relation to EU Mark No 14 899 223, ‘Alfrisa’, for goods and services in classes 29 and 35;

               —

               order the applicant for the trade mark at issue to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 85 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and rule 94 of the Regulation implementing the Community Trade Mark Regulation

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-561/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Civil Service — Members of contract staff — Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy — Reserve lists — Irregularity of the selection procedure — Subsequent measures intended for third parties — Interest of third parties — Interest of the service)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Galocha v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-561/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Members of contract staff - Selection procedure for the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy - Reserve lists - Irregularity of the selection procedure - Subsequent measures intended for third parties - Interest of third parties - Interest of the service))
   (2018/C 094/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Yosu Galocha (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Asmaryan Degtyareva and R-B. Dan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: R. Hanak, G. Poszler and S. Bernal Blanco, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, in particular, the annulment of the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001, the annulment of those reserve lists and the annulment of the decisions to appoint the successful candidates included in those lists.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection board, notified by the e-mail of the Head of Unit of Human Resources of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy of 4 June 2015, not to include the name of Mr Yosu Galocha in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

               2.

               Annuls the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

               3.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to appoint the successful candidates included in the reserve lists of selection procedure F4E/CA/ST/FGIV/2015/001;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               5.

               Orders the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to pay the costs, including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-117/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-642/16: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Order of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)
   (Case T-642/16) (1)

   (2018/C 094/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-59/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/15

         Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-59/18)
   (2018/C 094/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, S. Fiorentino and C. Colelli, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that Amsterdam would be the new seat of the European Medicines Agency, and, consequently, allocate that seat to the city of Milan.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Italian Government has brought an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the decision, adopted in the margins of the meeting of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17 of the Council of the European Union in its General Affairs formation, published by means of the press release containing the report [Outcome of the Council meeting (3579th Council meeting)], in so far as it established that the new seat of the European Medicines Agency would be Amsterdam. In support of its action the Italian Government has put forward a single plea in law, alleging misuse of powers through failure to investigate adequately and distortion of facts, since there is inconsistency between the factual situation of the location of Amsterdam and the information provided in the bid.


title: Case T-8/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/29

         Action brought on 11 January 2018 — easyJet Airline v Commission
   (Case T-8/18)
   (2018/C 094/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Willis, Solicitor, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) in its entirety and, in any event, so far as the alleged unlawful State aid given to the applicant is concerned; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia, and thus that the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the funding provided to the applicant by the airport operators conferred an undue advantage on the applicant and in particular that the Commission applied the market economy operator principle incorrectly.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the financing of the airlines concerned distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law as regards the conclusion that the alleged aid that the Commission found was given to the applicant could not be approved as compatible with the internal market under one of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(3) TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact and of law insofar as the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations, as the applicant had a legitimate expectation that its arrangements with the airport operators did not involve State aid.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards both: (a) the conclusion that the airport operators acted as mere ‘intermediaries’ of the region of Sardinia and that therefore the funding they provided to the applicant involved State resources and was imputable to the State; and (b) the application of the market economy operator principle with a view to establishing that the applicant received an undue advantage.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).


title: Case T-818/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market — Legally binding act — Limitation period — Economic nature of the ILS — Proportion of economic use of the installations — Incorrect numerical data — Request for adjustment — Determination of the updated values — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — BSCA v Commission
   (Case T-818/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of BSCA - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the internal market - Legally binding act - Limitation period - Economic nature of the ILS - Proportion of economic use of the installations - Incorrect numerical data - Request for adjustment - Determination of the updated values - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition - Legitimate expectations))
   (2018/C 094/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: P. Frühling, S. Golinvaux, H. Tacheny and J. Delarue, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Brussels Airport Company SA (represented by: T. Janssens, F. Hoseinian and T. Oeyen, lawyers) and Brussels Airlines SA/NV (represented initially by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, D. Vallindas and D. Dauchez, and subsequently by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2014) 6849 final of 1 October 2014 concerning measures SA. 14093 (C76/2002) implemented by Belgium in favour of BSCA and Ryanair.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA);

               3.

               Orders the Société wallonne des aéroports SA (Sowaer), Brussels Airport Company SA and Brussels Airlines SA/NV to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-13/18: Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/30

         Action brought on 15 January 2018 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v EUIPO — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Crédit Mutuel)
   (Case T-13/18)
   (2018/C 094/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: A. Casalonga, F. Codevelle and C. Bercial Arias, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France)

      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: European Union word mark ‘Crédit Mutuel’ — European Union trade mark No 9 943 135

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 1724/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concedes that the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ has a distinctive character through use for certain goods in Classes 9, 35 and 36;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it recognises the distinctive character of the European Union trade mark No 9 943 135 ‘Crédit Mutuel’ for certain goods in Classes 9, 16, 36, 38, 42 and 45;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), read in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-196/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of an application — Selection procedure — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Duty to provide reasons — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2018 – Gyarmathy v FRA
   (Case T-196/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of an application - Selection procedure - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to provide reasons - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal))
   (2018/C 094/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: C. Manolopoulos, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015, Gyarmathy v FRA (F 97/13, EU:F:2015:7), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Ms Valéria Anna Gyarmathy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-181/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — PC v EASO
   (Case T-181/17) (1)

   (2018/C 094/49)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-625/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Error in the declaration relating to the size of the undertaking — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Cessation of production of the substance — Criteria for calculation of the administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA
   (Case T-625/16) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Error in the declaration relating to the size of the undertaking - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Cessation of production of the substance - Criteria for calculation of the administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
   (2018/C 094/27)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. (Grajewo, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by: E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by: J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, firstly, of ECHA Decision SME(2016) 2851 of 23 June 2016, finding that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions for the fee reduction provided for in respect of medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it; secondly, of the invoices Nos 10058238 and 10058239 issued by ECHA and annexed to Decision SME(2016) 2851; and, thirdly, of ECHA’s Management Board Decision MB/43/2014 of 4 June 2015 amending Decision MB/D/29/2010, as amended by Decision MB/21/2012 on the classification of services for which charges are levied.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-281/17: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-281/17) (1)

   (2018/C 094/50)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-765/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura v EUIPO (EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS)
   (Case T-765/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 094/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL (Puerto del Rosario, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EL TOFIO El sabor de CANARIAS as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 July 2016 (Case R 1404/2015-5);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Grupo Ganaderos de Fuerteventura, SL.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-808/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE — Earlier EU word mark JOY — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2018 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)
   (Case T-808/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE - Earlier EU word mark JOY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 094/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 (Case R 235/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jean Patou Worldwide and Emboga.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case T-866/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2018 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)
   (Case T-866/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark billiger-mietwagen.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 094/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 (Case R 206/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign billiger-mietwagen.de as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SilverTours GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 November 2017 in Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Directive 89/662/EEC — Veterinary checks — Import restrictions — Raw and processed meat, egg and milk)

text:
               15.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 97/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 14 November 2017
   in Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17,
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

      (Directive 89/662/EEC — Veterinary checks — Import restrictions — Raw and processed meat, egg and milk)

   (2018/C 97/05)
   In Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATIONS for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 1 in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market) as amended and as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1 and by the sectoral adaptations in Annex I, and in particular Article 5 of the Act, by maintaining in force:

               (i)

               an authorisation system for the import of fresh meat and meat products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3 to 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;

               (ii)

               an authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and raw egg products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(e) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;

               (iii)

               an authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk and additional requirements, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(f) and Articles 4 and 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012, and a prohibition of the marketing of imported dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk, such as laid down in Article 7a of Icelandic Regulation No 104/2010; and

               (iv)

               an administrative practice of requiring importers to make a declaration and obtain an approval for the import of treated egg and dairy products, such as the one established in the context of the application of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012,

         the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 1 in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market) as amended and as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1 and Annex I, by maintaining in force:

                           (i)

                           the authorisation system for the import of fresh meat and meat products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(a) and Articles 4 and 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;

                           (ii)

                           the authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and egg products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(e) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;

                           (iii)

                           the authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk laid down in Article 3(f) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012, and the additional requirements concerning certain cheeses laid down in the third paragraph of Article 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012; and

                           (iv)

                           an administrative practice requiring importers of treated egg and dairy products to submit data to the relevant national authority proving that the products have been treated in accordance with national legislation.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-22/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2018 — TopFit e. V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e. V.

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2018 — TopFit e. V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e. V.
   (Case C-22/18)
   (2018/C 123/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: TopFit e. V., Daniele Biffi

      Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e. V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a provision in the Athletics Rules of an association of a Member State which makes participation in national championships dependent on having the nationality of the Member State amounts to impermissible discrimination?

               2.

               Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by allowing them to participate in national championships but only letting them start ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’ and not letting them participate in the finals of races and contests?

               3.

               Are Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an association of a Member State impermissibly discriminates against amateur athletes who do not have the nationality of the Member State by excluding them from the award of national titles or from the standings?


title: Case T-45/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CK1 — Earlier EU figurative mark CK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
   (Case T-45/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CK1 - Earlier EU figurative mark CK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 123/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany) (represented by: G. Rother and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 (Case R 2193/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Schmidt and Kwang Yang Motor.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-88/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/29

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)
   (Case T-88/18)
   (2018/C 134/41)
   Language 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 word mark ‘ARMONIE’ — Application for registration No 16 430 068

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2063/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-557/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal products for human use — Articles 28 and 29 — Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product — Article 10 — Generic medicinal product — Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product — Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Astellas Pharma GmbH v Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)
   (Case C-557/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Articles 28 and 29 - Decentralised procedure for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product - Article 10 - Generic medicinal product - Data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product - Power of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned to determine the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States concerned to review the determination of the point in time from which the exclusivity period starts to run - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))
   (2018/C 166/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astellas Pharma GmbH

      Defendants: Helm AG, Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus (Fimea)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 28 and Article 29(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a decentralised marketing-authorisation procedure for a generic medicinal product, the competent authority of a Member State concerned by that procedure cannot itself determine the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run when adopting, under Article 28(5) of that directive, its decision on the placing on the market of that generic medicinal product in that Member State.

               2)

               Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State involved in a decentralised procedure for marketing authorisations, hearing an action brought by the holder of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product against the marketing-authorisation decision for a generic medicinal product in that Member State taken by its competent authority, has jurisdiction to review the determination of the point in time from which the data exclusivity period for the reference medicinal product starts to run. By contrast, that court does not have jurisdiction to review whether the initial marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product granted in another Member State was granted in accordance with that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-202/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Bruel v Commission

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/45

         Action brought on 23 March 2018 — Bruel v Commission
   (Case T-202/18)
   (2018/C 166/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Damien Bruel (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible and well founded;

         and consequently:

               —

               annul the decision of 18 January 2018 entitled ‘Decision of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 4 of the rules implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001’ on the ground of infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 9 of that regulation, and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, of Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights, of the general principle of equality of arms, and of the duty to state reasons;

         in any event:

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

               1.

               A first plea, alleging that Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) have been infringed.

               2.

               A second plea, alleging that Article 6 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed.

               3.

               A third plea, alleging that the general principle of equality of arms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed.

               4.

               A fourth plea, alleging that Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the principle of proportionality and the duty to state reasons have been infringed.


201805250691897372018/C 200/532212017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424414111Case T-221/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MEMORAME — Earlier EU figurative mark mémora and earlier national word marks MÉMORA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4110120180424EN0053411411Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Mémora Servicios Funerarios v EUIPO — Chatenoud (MEMORAME)
   (Case T-221/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MEMORAME — Earlier EU figurative mark mémora and earlier national word marks MÉMORA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/53Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and J. Gallego Jiménez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Georges Chatenoud (Thiviers, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 (Case R 1308/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mémora Servicios Funerarios and Mr Chatenoud.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Mémora Servicios Funerarios SLU to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


201805250031897132018/C 200/021912016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804102211Case C-191/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State — Scope of EU law — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN210120180410EN00022121Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Romano Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-191/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State — Scope of EU law — Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals — Restriction on free movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin)’2018/C 200/02Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Romano Pisciotti

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            EU law must be interpreted as meaning that in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America has been arrested, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, the situation of that citizen falls within the scope of EU law, since he has made use of his right to move freely within the European Union and the request for extradition was made under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003.

            2.

            In a case, such as that in the main proceedings, in which a Union citizen who has been the subject of a request for extradition to the United States of America under the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003 has been arrested in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national, for the purposes of potentially acceding to that request, Articles 18 and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the requested Member State from drawing a distinction, on the basis of a rule of constitutional law, between its nationals and the nationals of other Member States and from granting that extradition whilst not permitting extradition of its own nationals, provided that the requested Member State has already put the competent authorities of the Member State of which the citizen is a national in a position to seek the surrender of that citizen pursuant to a European arrest warrant and the latter Member State has not taken any action in that regard.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


201805250191897592018/C 200/146452016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419121211Case C-645/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1210120180419EN0014121121Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL
   (Case C-645/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract)’2018/C 200/14Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

      Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity and compensation regimes laid down by that article, in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively, in the event of termination of the commercial agency contract are applicable where termination occurs during the trial period provided for by the contract.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


201805250271897472018/C 200/032582016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804123311Case C-258/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 31 — Liability of air carriers for checked baggage — Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier — Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system — Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN310120180412EN00033131Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
   (Case C-258/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 31 — Liability of air carriers for checked baggage — Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier — Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system — Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier)’2018/C 200/03Language of the case: Finnish
      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finnair Oyj

      Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 31(4) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, within the periods referred to in Article 31(2) of that convention, the complaint must be made in writing, in accordance with Article 31(3) thereof, failing which no action may be brought against the carrier.

            2.

            A complaint, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, recorded in the information system of the air carrier, fulfils the requirement of being in a written form under Article 31(3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999.

            3.

            Article 31(2) and (3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not precluding the requirement of being in a written form from being regarded as fulfilled in the case where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the air carrier records in writing the declaration of loss either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s information system, provided that that passenger can check the accuracy of the text of the complaint, as taken down in writing and entered in that system, and can, where appropriate, amend or supplement it, or even replace it, before expiry of the period laid down in Article 31(2) of that convention.

            4.

            Article 31 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as not making a complaint subject to further substantive requirements in addition to that of giving notice to the air carrier of the damage sustained.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


201805250511897052018/C 200/402882016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426323322Case T-288/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3220120180426EN0040322332Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Convivo v EUIPO — Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)
   (Case T-288/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark M’Cooky — Earlier national figurative mark MR.COOK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)’2018/C 200/40Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Convivo GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca (Quito, Ecuador)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 (Case R 1039/2015-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C. A. Pronaca and Convivo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Convivo GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


201805250181897442018/C 200/1582017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412121322Case C-8/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1220120180412EN0015122132Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA
   (Case C-8/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to deduct VAT — Period allowed by national law for exercising that right — Deduction of additional VAT paid to the State that was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices following a tax adjustment — The date from which the period starts to run)’2018/C 200/15Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

      Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63, 167, 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 219 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and also the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which, following a tax adjustment, additional value added tax (VAT) was paid to the State and was the subject of documents rectifying the initial invoices several years after the supply of the goods in question, the right to deduct VAT is to be refused on the ground that the period laid down by that legislation for the exercise of that right started to run from the date of issue of those initial invoices and had expired.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.