title: Case T-605/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — OY v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Article 3b of the CEOS — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Account taken of professional experience — General Implementing Provisions for Article 79(2) of the CEOS)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — OY v Commission
      (Case T-605/16)
      ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Article 3b of the CEOS - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Account taken of professional experience - General Implementing Provisions for Article 79(2) of the CEOS))
      (2018/C 436/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: OY (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 2 October 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request for a review of her classification in function group IV, grade 15, step 1 and, second, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the AECE of 29 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders OY to pay the costs.


title: Case T-413/17 INTP: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2018 — Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D) (Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment — EU trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/50

      Order of the General Court of 2 October 2018 — Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D)
      (Case T-413/17 INTP) (1)

      ((Procedure - Interpretation of a judgment - EU trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 436/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG (Tuttlingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Gruber and N. Siebertz, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application for interpretation of the judgment of 19 June 2018, Karl Storz v EUIPO (3D) (T-413/17, not published, EU:T:2018:356).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interpretation.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-572/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2018 in Case T-577/17: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/25

      Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2018 in Case T-577/17: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission
      (Case C-572/18 P)
      (2018/C 436/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (represented by: M. Günes, L. C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the 2 July 2018 order of the General Court in Case T-577/17 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission;

                  —

                  give a ruling declaring the action for annulment to be admissible;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings going to the substance of the case;

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellants challenge the contested order upon the grounds that it is based upon significant errors in law. The appellants raise five arguments concerning errors in law:

                  —

                  First, the General Court erred in holding that the UCC (1) and related delegated and implementing regulations do not confer on the Commission the power to adopt decisions that are binding on the national customs authorities in the examination of the economic conditions.

                  —

                  Second, the General Court erred in holding that the role of the Commission during the examination of economic conditions is purely procedural in nature.

                  —

                  Third, the General Court erred in treating the judgment of 11 May 2006 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods (C-11/05) as binding legal precedent for the interpretation of Article 259(5) UCC IA (2).

                  —

                  Fourth, the General Court erred in failing to consider the September 2016 administrative arrangement concerning the application of Article 211(6) UCC & Article 259 UCC IA as evidence of the binding nature of the Commission’s conclusions on the economic conditions.

                  —

                  Fifth, the General Court erred in failing to consider that the appellants were directly and individually concerned by the Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC) (OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC IA) (OJ 2015, L 343, p. 558).


title: Case T-640/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Heat stabilisers — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC — Decision amending the initial decision — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Fines — 10 % ceiling — Group of companies — Equal treatment)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — GEA Group v Commission
      (Case T-640/16) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Heat stabilisers - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC - Decision amending the initial decision - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Fines - 10 % ceiling - Group of companies - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 436/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan and V. Bottka, Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 3920 final of 29 June 2016 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat stabilisers);

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-506/17: Order of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/51

      Order of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-506/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2018/C 436/72)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017, amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and its subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Rami Makhlouf is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-7/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MINERAL MAGIC — Earlier national word mark MAGIC MINERALS BY JEROME ALEXANDER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — John Mills v EUIPO — Jerome Alexander Consulting (MINERAL MAGIC)
      (Case T-7/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MINERAL MAGIC - Earlier national word mark MAGIC MINERALS BY JEROME ALEXANDER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: John Mills Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. (Surfside, Florida, United States) (represented by: T. Bamford and C. Rani, Solicitors)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2087/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jerome Alexander Consulting and John Mills.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2087/2015-1);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by John Mills Ltd;

                  3.

                  Orders Jerome Alexander Consulting Corp. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by John Mills.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-588/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (FETICO), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Grupo de Empresas DIA, S.A., Twins Alimentación, S.A.

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 20 September 2018 — Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (FETICO), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) v Grupo de Empresas DIA, S.A., Twins Alimentación, S.A.
      (Case C-588/18)
      (2018/C 436/36)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Audiencia Nacional

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (FETICO), Federación Estatal de Servicios, Movilidad y Consumo de la Unión General de Trabajadores (FESMC-UGT), Federación de Servicios de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.)

         Defendants: Grupo de Empresas DIA, S.A., Twins Alimentación, S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 5 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the weekly rest period is permitted to overlap with paid leave of absence intended to meet needs other than rest?

                  2.

                  Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which annual leave is permitted to overlap with paid leave of absence intended to meet needs other than rest, relaxation and leisure?

         (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case T-8/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Les Éditions P. Amaury (GOLDEN BALLS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GOLDEN BALLS — Earlier EU word mark BALLON D’OR — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Golden Balls v EUIPO — Les Éditions P. Amaury (GOLDEN BALLS)
      (Case T-8/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Earlier EU word mark BALLON D’OR - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and T. Dolde, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Botis, and subsequently by S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and M. Laborde, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2016 (Case R 1962/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intra-Presse and Ms Inez Samarawira.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 September 2016 (Case R 1962/2015-1) in so far as it upheld the opposition with regard to ‘Slot machines, for use in combination with a screen, scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; photographic, cinematographic and optical apparatus and instruments, recording discs, data processing equipment and computers, computer hardware, mouse-mats, mobile phone accessories, sunglasses’ in Class 9, ‘decorations for Christmas trees’ in Class 28 and ‘theatre production such as shows and theatrical performances, production of musicals, organisation of music events/concerts’ in Class 41;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-647/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Vidin (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Korporativna targovska banka AD in insolvency v Elit Petrol AD

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Vidin (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Korporativna targovska banka AD in insolvency v Elit Petrol AD
      (Case C-647/18)
      (2018/C 455/35)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Okrazhen sad Vidin

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant in the main proceedings: Korporativna targovska banka AD

         Defendant in the main proceedings: Elit Petrol AD

         Questions referred

                  1.

                              i)

                              Should the value of ‘the rule of law’ protected under Article 2 TEU be interpreted to mean that, when legal provisions are adopted in a Member State, the national legislature is obliged to comply with the legal principles and criteria that characterise ‘the rule of law’, as developed and cited in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2014 entitled ‘A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law’?

                              ii)

                              Should the value of ‘the rule of law’ enshrined in Article 2 TEU and its basic principles — legality, legal certainty, and independent and effective judicial review including respect for fundamental rights and equality before the law — be interpreted to mean that they prevent the adoption of a provision of national law, such as that enacted in Paragraph 5 of the transitional and final provisions of the Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Zakona za bankovata nesastoyatelnost (Bulgarian Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on the Insolvency of Banks, ‘ZIDZBN’), which reregulates the social relations associated with the registration of security interests in public registers exceptionally for the benefit of a particular individual? In this particular case, the national provision retroactively annuls the deletions in the registers of security interests established for the benefit of the insolvent KTB AD and gives rise to legal uncertainty, as it stipulates that the insolvent KTB AD can cite the security interests deemed to have been deleted towards third parties ex lege, even though the liabilities for which the security interests were registered have been discharged.

                              iii)

                              Can the court directly invoke and directly apply Article 2 TEU if it finds that the way in which the provision of national law in Paragraph 5 of the transitional and final provisions of the ZIDZBN retroactively reregulates the legal effects of the security interests recorded in public registers for the benefit of the insolvent KTB AD infringes the value of ‘the rule of law’ and its aforementioned basic principles?

                              iv)

                              What criteria and conditions must the national court apply when considering if the value of ‘the rule of law’ within the meaning of Article 2 TEU permits the adoption of a provision of national law such as that in Paragraph 5 of the transitional and final provisions of the ZIDZBN?

                              v)

                              Should Article 67(1) TFEU, which states that the Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States, be interpreted to mean that it prevents provisions of national law which give rise to uncertainty in civil and commercial transactions or anticipate the outcome of pending litigation?

                  2.

                              i)

                              Can the applicable provisions of Article 7(2)(h) and Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, read in combination with Article 2 TEU, systematically be interpreted in conjunction with the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 17(1), Article 20 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?

                              ii)

                              If the said provisions of EU law should be interpreted in conjunction with the rights enshrined in the Charter, is it admissible to apply those rights in insolvency proceedings in a Member State and should the protection afforded by those rights be interpreted to mean that it prevents a national legal rule which retroactively reregulates social relations exceptionally in favour of an creditor in insolvency specifically named by the legislature?

                              iii)

                              Do Article 7(2)(h) and Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, interpreted in conjunction with the rights enshrined in Article 17(1), Article 20 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, prevent the application of a national legal rule which retroactively annuls deletions in the registers of the security interests held by KTB AD and states that the ‘resurrected’ security interests for the benefit of the insolvent KTB AD can be cited against third parties ex lege, thereby infringing the rights of other creditors and changing the order of satisfaction of claims in insolvency proceedings?

                              iv)

                              Can Article 7(2)(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, in conjunction with the rights enshrined in Article 17(1), Article 20 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted to mean that it prevents the conditional admission in insolvency proceedings of the claims of a creditor specifically named by the legislature (KTB AD), where that creditor’s claims had been extinguished in full by set-off when the claims were lodged and litigation seeking annulment of the set-off is pending and has not yet been completed? If the claims of the creditor in insolvency are lodged under the condition that the national court finds the set-offs by which the claims were extinguished to be unenforceable, does the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter permit a national provision of law which retroactively amends the conditions under which set-off may be invoked and thus anticipates the outcome of the pending litigation seeking annulment of the set-off or admission of the claim in insolvency proceedings?

                              v)

                              Can the court rely upon and directly apply the provisions of Article 7(2)(h) and Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings, read in combination with Article 17(1), Article 20 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, if it finds that the national provisions of law on which the conditional admission of the claim of KTB AD is based and/or which bring about the condition on which the claim is lodged conflict with EU law?

                  3.

                  Should Article 77 of Directive 2014/59/EU (2) be interpreted to mean that it prevents the application of a national law which retroactively amends the conditions of set-off of reciprocal claims and liabilities with a credit institution in recovery or resolution, thereby anticipating the outcome of pending litigation seeking annulment of the set-off declared to the credit institution?

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19.

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


title: Case T-633/18: Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/32

      Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES)
      (Case T-633/18)
      (2018/C 455/43)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rose Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iviton s. r. o. (Prešov, Slovakia)

         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 word mark ‘TON JONES’ — Application for registration No 15 109 614

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2136/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to continue the opposition proceedings without applying the ground for dismissal used previously;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs;

                  —

                  in any event, not award the trade mark applicant any costs in respect of the proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case T-180/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2017 — Icap and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Yen interest rate derivatives sector — Decision finding six infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Manipulation of the JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR interbank reference rates — Restriction of competition by object — Participation of a broker in the infringements — ‘Hybrid’ settlement procedure — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Principle of sound administration — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2017 — Icap and Others v Commission
   (Case T-180/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Yen interest rate derivatives sector - Decision finding six infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Manipulation of the JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR interbank reference rates - Restriction of competition by object - Participation of a broker in the infringements - ‘Hybrid’ settlement procedure - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2018/C 005/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Icap plc (London, United Kingdom), Icap Management Services Ltd (London) and Icap New Zealand Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen and S. Frank, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, B. Mongin and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 432 final of 4 February 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(a) of European Commission Decision C(2015) 432 final of 4 February 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives), inasmuch as it relates to the period after 22 August 2007;

               2.

               Annuls Article 1(b) of Decision C(2015) 432 final;

               3.

               Annuls Article 1(d) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period from 5 March to 27 April 2010;

               4.

               Annuls Article 1(e) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period prior to 18 May 2010;

               5.

               Annuls Article 1(f) of Decision C(2015) 432 final inasmuch as it relates to the period prior to 18 May 2010;

               6.

               Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2015) 432 final;

               7.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               8.

               Orders Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd and Icap New Zealand Ltd to bear one quarter of their own costs;

               9.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of Icap, Icap Management Services and Icap New Zealand.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-684/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Ciarko v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cooker hood — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Ciarko v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood)
   (Case T-684/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cooker hood - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2018/C 005/50)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością sp.k.(Sanok, Poland) (represented by: M. Żabińska, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maan sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 1212/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Maan and Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością sp.k. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

               3.

               Orders Maan sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-701/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — OCU v SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/48

         Action brought on 5 October 2017 — OCU v SRB
   (Case T-701/17)
   (2018/C 005/66)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (OCU) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

               —

               Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-423/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision — Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document — Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Bulgarian language version — Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Expiry of the extension decision — Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-423/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision - Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Bulgarian language version - Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures - Expiry of the extension decision - Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application))
   (2018/C 005/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, аdvokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Operative part:

   The Court (First Chamber) hereby:

               1)

               Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, HX v Council (T-723/14, EU:T:2016:332);

               2)

               Declares that there is no longer a need to adjudicate on the request to modify the application submitted by HX before the General Court of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by HX both at first instance and in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.09.2016


title: Case T-381/17: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Acsen v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2011/35/EU — Merger of public limited liability companies — Nullity of the merger — No distinction between absolute nullity and relative nullity of the merger — Time-limit for bringing an action — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/27

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Acsen v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-381/17) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Directive 2011/35/EU - Merger of public limited liability companies - Nullity of the merger - No distinction between absolute nullity and relative nullity of the merger - Time-limit for bringing an action - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 042/40)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ibram Acsen (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Gagu, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: M. Pencheva and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Petrova Cerchia and A. Varnav, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 2011, L 110, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Ibram Acsen is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-669/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Hernando Avendaño and Others v SRB

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/28

         Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Hernando Avendaño and Others v SRB
   (Case T-669/17)
   (2018/C 042/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: María Hernando Avendaño (Madrid, Spain), Ignacio Ruiz-Rivas Hernando (Madrid), Juan Ruiz-Rivas Cuesta (Madrid), Lucía Ruiz-Rivas Cuesta (Madrid) (represented by: P. Gabeiras Vázquez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare the present action for annulment admissible, together with the evidence submitted and measures sought;

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation for the harm caused.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-735/17: Action brought on 31 October 2017 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España v SRB

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/28

         Action brought on 31 October 2017 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España v SRB
   (Case T-735/17)
   (2018/C 042/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. Llanos Acuña, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the contested decision and declare it null and void.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its executive session of 7 June 2017 (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08) ordering the activation of the Single Resolution Mechanism and its application to the Spanish institution Banco Popular Español, S.A..
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-745/17: Action brought on 14 November 2017 — Kerkosand v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/29

         Action brought on 14 November 2017 — Kerkosand v Commission
   (Case T-745/17)
   (2018/C 042/43)
   Language of the Case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kerkosand spol. s.r.o. (Šajdíkové Humence, Slovak Republic) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and C. Holtmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2017)5050 final of 20 July 2017 in State aid Case SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovak Republic ‘Investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a.s.’;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the letter of notification of 5 September 2017 sent to the applicant’s representatives by the European Commission in Case SA.38121 (2014/CP) ‘Alleged State aid to Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a.s.’; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural requirement in the form of the first sentence of Article 15(1), in conjunction with Article 4, of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

               According to the applicant, the defendant takes the view that the aid meets the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. (2) This, in the defendant’s view, precludes it from carrying out a preliminary investigation procedure and adopting a decision within the meaning of Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. That view is vitiated by an error of law, since the defendant is authorised to subject aid based on Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 to a preliminary investigation. The more than three and a half year-long investigation procedure crossed the threshold between a prima facie examination and a preliminary investigation. The defendant was therefore obliged, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, to adopt a decision within the meaning of Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. The defendant, however, infringed that obligation, in so far as it rejected the complaint as unfounded without establishing that the aid at issue raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the TFEU and of the rules of law relating to its application in the form of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, Article 109 TFEU in conjunction with Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 and Article 108(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589

                           —

                           The defendant takes the view that its discretion to examine is limited, in respect of aid based on Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, to the examination of the conditions for exemption set out by that regulation. That view is erroneous in law since, according to the case-law of the EU Courts, compliance with the conditions of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 has the sole consequence that there is a primacy of a presumption of compatibility over an individual examination. That primacy does not apply in cases such as the present, in which the aid is, prima facie, to be attributed particular importance in respect of its effects on competition. In such cases, the defendant is entitled to carry out an individual assessment outside the framework of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 in compliance with primary law and the general principles of EU law. The defendant has infringed Article 107(3)(a) TFEU by failing to exercise that discretion.

                           —

                           Furthermore, the defendant has infringed Article 109 TFEU in conjunction with Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, inasmuch as it retroactively applied that regulation to the present case, even though the conditions for doing so were not met. The aid is ad hoc aid for a large company. The incentive effect of such aid is subject to particularly strict requirements in accordance with Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. The proof necessary for the Slovak authorities to satisfy themselves, pursuant to the documents of the aid recipient, that those requirements had been satisfied before they approved the aid has not been adduced.

                           —

                           Lastly, the defendant has infringed Article 108(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, since it has not opened the formal investigation procedure. The defendant assessed the SME status of the aid recipient assumed by it only insufficiently and incompletely during the more than three and a half year-long investigation procedure. In addition, the defendant expressly mentioned difficulties in a meeting in regard to the assessment whether the case concerned aid granted on the basis of an aid scheme or ad hoc aid. The defendant was entitled to leave that question open only if it had sufficiently assessed and correctly established that the aid recipient had SME status. That, however, was not done. Moreover, it was only in the contested decision that the defendant acknowledged that there was no compatibility in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 800/2008, (3) after having claimed the opposite for several years.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the [EC] Treaty (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).


title: Case T-754/17: Action brought on 15 November 2017 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/30

         Action brought on 15 November 2017 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-ouest (port de Brest) v Commission
   (Case T-754/17)
   (2018/C 042/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               rule that the application is admissible and therefore annul the Commission decision with the reference C(2017) 5176 final concerning aid scheme No SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of French ports;

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission that the fact that the economic activities of the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-ouest are not subject to corporation tax constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, in that the action in Case T-39/17, Chambre de commerce et d'industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-ouest (port de Brest) v Commission, brought by the applicant concerning the right to have access to the administrative file is still pending. Thus, since the Commission has allegedly relied on documents that are essential to establish its allegations against the applicant, without, however, disclosing those documents to the applicant, despite numerous requests on the part of the latter, the decision that provides an analysis of such documents must be vitiated by unlawfulness.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding the classification of the activities carried out by the port of Brest. This plea is divided into two parts.

                           —

                           The first part is based on the assertion that the activities of the port of Brest are services in the public interest. The applicant argues that, in that context, the exemption from corporation tax cannot be contested by the defendant unless it can show that the exemption constitutes State aid applied to a competitive activity.

                           —

                           The second part, submitted in the alternative, alleges that if the port activities are not services in the public interest, they are nevertheless services of general economic interest that could, in compliance with EU law, be subsidised, inter alia by fiscal measures. The applicant claims that, in such circumstances, it is not appropriate to apply the competition rules in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a lack of justification and a manifest error of assessment regarding the classification by the Commission of the measure at issue as State aid. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           In the first part, the applicant claims that the exception to the application of Article 106(2) TFEU must be combined with Article 93 TFEU, which provides that aids are compatible with the treaties if they meet the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service.

                           —

                           In the second part, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and lack of sufficient justification as regards the application of Article 107 TFEU. First, the contested decision is lacking in sufficient justification in that it provides no evidence to establish or demonstrate how the aid scheme in question affects, or may affect, trade between Member States with respect to French ports and, in particular, the port of Brest. Second, the decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that it classifies as State aid a measure benefitting the port of Brest even though the condition that trade be affected is not satisfied.


title: Case T-779/17: Action brought on 30 November 2017 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/31

         Action brought on 30 November 2017 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)
   (Case T-779/17)
   (2018/C 042/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: United Wineries, SA

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘VIÑA ALARDE’ — Application for registration No 13 390 521

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 281/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-781/17: Action brought on 30 November 2017 — Kraftpojkarna v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/32

         Action brought on 30 November 2017 — Kraftpojkarna v Commission
   (Case T-781/17)
   (2018/C 042/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kraftpojkarna AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               invalidate

                           —

                           Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and

                           —

                           Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China;

               2.

               annul

                           —

                           Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1524 of 5 September 2017 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, as far as it applies to the applicant; and

               3.

               order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:
   The Commission breached Article 8(1), (9) & (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), and Article 13(1), (9) & (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2), when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.
   This plea in law is based on a plea of illegality of Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (3), and Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (4), which give to the Commission the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55.

      (3)  OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66.


title: Case T-782/17: Action brought on 30 November 2017 — Wuxi Saijing Solar v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/33

         Action brought on 30 November 2017 — Wuxi Saijing Solar v Commission
   (Case T-782/17)
   (2018/C 042/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant): Wuxi Saijing Solar Co. Ltd (Yixing, Chine) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               invalidate

                           —

                           Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and

                           —

                           Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China;

               2.

               annul

                           —

                           Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1524 of 5 September 2017 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, as far as it applies to the applicant; and

               3.

               order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:
   The Commission breached Article 8(1), (9) & (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), and Article 13(1), (9) & (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2), when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.
   This plea in law is based on a plea of illegality of Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (3), and Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (4), which give to the Commission the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 176, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55.

      (3)  OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66.


title: Case T-783/17: Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/34

         Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
   (Case T-783/17)
   (2018/C 042/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration.

      (1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case T-786/17: Action brought on 4 December 2017 — BTC v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/35

         Action brought on 4 December 2017 — BTC v Commission
   (Case T-786/17)
   (2018/C 042/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BTC GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: L. von Lutterotti and A. Frei, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Measure Ares (2017) 4799558 of 27 September 2017 concerning the recovery of funds granted and the corresponding Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017, together with the notification Ares (2017) 4790311 of 2 October 2017, all of which were notified by email on 4 October 2017 to info@btc-srl.com, as well as all further legal acts (including those which are unknown) which preceded the two mentioned above, which are related thereto or which are designed to ensure their execution;

               —

               in the alternative, declare, in the context of arbitration proceedings on the basis of Article 272 TFEU and Article 5(2) of Grant Agreement No C046311 of 29 June 2007, that the amount which the European Commission requested from the applicant in Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017 is not owed, the applicant consequently being entitled to withhold that amount;

               —

               in the further alternative, declare, also in the context of arbitration proceedings on the basis of Article 272 TFEU and Article 5(2) of Grant Agreement No C046311 of 29 June 2007, and only in the event that the applicant might owe an amount to the European Community pursuant to Grant Agreement No C046311 of 29 June 2007, that any sum which may be payable by the applicant is lower than the amount indicated by the European Commission in Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure, those costs being assessed at EUR 30 000 on the basis of the Italian parameters governing the payment of lawyers’ fees, in accordance with Ministerial Decree No 55/2014 of the Italian Justice Ministry, together with a 15 % flat-rate reimbursement of fees under Article 15 of Ministerial Decree No 55/2014 of the Italian Justice Ministry, a 4 % statutory contribution to the lawyers’ fund and 22 % VAT, in so far as it is due, subject to a subsequent, more precise assessment, in the course of the proceedings, of the expenditure incurred.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises seven pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are invalid as having been adopted out of time pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are invalid due to infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by reason of the disproportionately long processing time taken to adopt the measure and the abovementioned debit note (infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of the reasonable duration of proceedings).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are invalid due to infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by reason of the errors committed in the establishment of the facts, the erroneous, inadequate and contradictory nature of the statement of reasons for the measure and infringement of the right to access documents.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are invalid due to infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 and infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by reason of the disproportionate nature of the amount requested to be repaid, the lack, or erroneous nature, of the establishment of the facts, and the inadequate or contradictory statement of reasons for the measure.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the amount which the Commission claimed from the applicant in Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017 is not owed because the Commission infringed the contractual principle of good faith, established the facts in a tardy and inadequate manner, and failed to assess, or assessed incorrectly, the evidence available.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the amount which the Commission requested from the applicant in Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017 is not owed, as the conclusions drawn by the Commission on the basis of the OLAF report do not tally with the facts.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the amount which the Commission claimed from the applicant in Debit Note No 3241712708 of 2 October 2017 was not, in any event, owed to that extent on the grounds that, pursuant to Article 19 of Annex II to the Grant Agreement, only amounts which have in fact been received in error have to be repaid, while those amounts which were paid out on the basis of an invoice which is correct and complies with the contractual conditions do not have to be repaid (infringement of the principle of good faith and of the principle of proportionality).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-789/17: Action brought on 29 November 2017 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/36

         Action brought on 29 November 2017 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)
   (Case T-789/17)
   (2018/C 042/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TecAlliance GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: P. Engemann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

      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 word mark ‘TecDocPower’ — EU trade mark No 13 402 326

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 2433/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 47(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-790/17: Action brought on 05 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/37

         Action brought on 05 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)
   (Case T-790/17)
   (2018/C 042/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St. Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ — Application for registration No 9 586 348

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 in Case R 92/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               consider the present appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the appeal for the following services in class 41: ‘Arranging and conducting entertainment conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Club services (entertainment or education); Providing a website featuring information regarding conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Special event planning; Organization of cultural events and of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes, Publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line; Vocational guidance and instructions services (education or training advice)’;

               —

               allow the European Union trademark application No. 9 586 348 for registration for the above-mentioned services; and

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the Applicant in the course of the present proceeding.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal made a wrong appreciation of the distinctive character of the European Union trademark application No. 9 586 348 in relation with certain services in class 41.


title: Case T-602/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Career evaluation report — Assessment exercise 2012 — Drawing up — Application for annulment of the decision closing appraisal report)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC
   (Case T-602/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Career evaluation report - Assessment exercise 2012 - Drawing up - Application for annulment of the decision closing appraisal report))
   (2018/C 042/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), (represented by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the appeal assessor of the ECDC of 21 September 2015 finalising the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2011 and, insofar as necessary, the decision of the ECDC of 20 April 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision of the appeal assessor.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CJ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case No F-32/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-611/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Trautmann v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for grant — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Regular full-time attendance at an educational establishment which charges fees — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of sums overpaid — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Trautmann v EEAS
   (Case T-611/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for grant - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Regular full-time attendance at an educational establishment which charges fees - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Recovery of sums overpaid - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard))
   (2018/C 042/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ernst Ulrich Trautmann (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: M. Meyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Weiss, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the decision of the appointing authority of the EEAS of 18 November 2015 to reassess the amount of the education allowance due to the applicant, (ii) of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 12 January 2016 to recover, by means of deductions from pay, the sums unduly paid to the applicant, (iii) of the decision of 12 May 2016 rejecting the complaints against those decisions, and, second, and an order requiring the EEAS to return to the applicant the sums previously paid in accordance with his right to the education allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ernst Ulrich Trautmann to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under the number F-41/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-401/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 June 2017 by Double ‘W’ Enterprises Ltd against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 May 2017 in Case T-899/16: Double ‘W’ Enterprises Ltd v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/2

         Appeal brought on 30 June 2017 by Double ‘W’ Enterprises Ltd against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 May 2017 in Case T-899/16: Double ‘W’ Enterprises Ltd v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-401/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Double ‘W’ Enterprises Ltd (represented by: A. Rubio Crespo, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain
   By order of 14 December 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-692/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Article 47(b) of the CEOS — Annulment of early termination decision — Article 266 TFEU — Compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Adoption of new early termination decision — Retroactive effect)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC
   (Case T-692/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Article 47(b) of the CEOS - Annulment of early termination decision - Article 266 TFEU - Compliance with a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal - Adoption of new early termination decision - Retroactive effect))
   (2018/C 042/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the ECDC decision of 2 December 2015 terminating, with retroactive effect as from 30 April 2012, the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff and, secondly, of the ECDC decision of 27 June 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that termination decision and, on the other hand, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CJ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-791/17: Action brought on 5 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/37

         Action brought on 5 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)
   (Case T-791/17)
   (2018/C 042/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St. Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ — Application for registration No 11 176 773

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 in Case R 93/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               consider the present appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the appeal for the following services in class 41: ‘Arranging and conducting entertainment conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Club services (entertainment or education); Providing a website featuring information regarding conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Special event planning; Organization of cultural events and of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes, Publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line; Vocational guidance and instructions services (education or training advice)’;

               —

               allow the European Union trademark application No. 11 176 773 for registration for the above-mentioned services; and

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the Applicant in the course of the present proceeding.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal made a wrong appreciation of the distinctive character of the European Union trademark application No. 11 176 773 in relation with certain services in class 41.


title: Case C-468/17 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2017 by Morton’s of Chicago Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 May 2017 in Case T-223/15: Morton’s of Chicago v EUIPO

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/2

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2017 by Morton’s of Chicago Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 May 2017 in Case T-223/15: Morton’s of Chicago v EUIPO
   (Case C-468/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Morton’s of Chicago Inc. (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister, M. Krause, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Mortons the Restaurant Ltd
   By order of 13 December 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-792/17: Action brought on 5 December 2017 — Man Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/38

         Action brought on 5 December 2017 — Man Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)
   (Case T-792/17)
   (2018/C 042/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Man Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, Republic of Korea)

      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 figurative mark ‘MANDO’ — Application for registration No 11 276 301

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1677/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

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


title: Case C-520/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-470/16, X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/2

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2017 in Case T-470/16, X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-520/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Hillers, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 30 November 2017, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-797/17: Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/39

         Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)
   (Case T-797/17)
   (2018/C 042/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Star Television Productions Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marc Dorcel SA (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘STAR’ — EU trade mark No 1 992 510

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1519/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               refuse the application for revocation and;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-136/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders — Refusal to grant access — Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested — Exception relating to the protection of public security — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to the protection of privacy — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — General presumption — Unreasonable workload)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament
   (Case T-136/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders - Refusal to grant access - Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of public security - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of privacy - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - General presumption - Unreasonable workload))
   (2018/C 042/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, N. Rasmussen and L. Darie, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, L. Darie and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 February 2015 refusing to grant access to the requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008/S 149-199622.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-700/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ascendo Medienagentur (SLIMDYNAMICS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SLIMDYNAMICS — Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ascendo Medienagentur (SLIMDYNAMICS)
   (Case T-700/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SLIMDYNAMICS - Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 042/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

      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: Ascendo Medienagentur AG (Gamprin-Bendern, Liechtenstein)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 (Joined Cases R 1814/2015-4 and R 1780/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Ascendo Medienagentur.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-614/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud
   (Case C-614/17)
   (2018/C 042/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego

      Respondent: Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the evocation of a protected designation of origin prohibited by Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006 (1) necessarily be brought about by the use of a name visually, phonetically or conceptually similar to the protected designation of origin or may it be brought about by the use of figurative signs evoking the designation of origin?

               2)

               When the protected designation of origin is of a geographical nature (Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 510/2006) and when the products are the same or comparable, can the use of signs evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin is associated constitute evocation of the protected designation of origin itself, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006, which is prohibited even when the user of those signs is a producer established in the region associated with the protected designation of origin, but whose products are not protected by the designation of origin because they do not meet the requirements set out in the product specification, apart from the geographical provenance?

               3)

               Must the concept of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to whose perception the national court has to refer in order to assess whether there is ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006, be understood to cover European consumers or can it cover solely consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected geographical indication is produced or with which the PDO is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) noo 510/2006 of 20 March 2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).