title: Case C-109/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-109/18)
   (2018/C 161/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associació de Productors i Usuaris d’Energia Elèctrica

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to levy the hydraulic tax on hydroelectric production operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and also on the remaining [consumptive] uses of waters, with only the electricity production use being taxed, constitutes prohibited State aid?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case C-159/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Revocation of identification for VAT purposes — Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked — Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/13

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa
   (Case C-159/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Revocation of identification for VAT purposes - Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked - Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period))
   (2018/C 161/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanţa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

      Respondents: Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 167 to 169 and 179, Articles 213(1) and 214(1), and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that, on account of the alleged infringements committed by that person, the tax authorities could not have access to the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to deduct input value added tax paid by that taxable person have been satisfied or that that person acted fraudulently in order to enjoy that right, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-185/18: Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Lucchini v Commission

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/70

         Action brought on 14 March 2018 — Lucchini v Commission
   (Case T-185/18)
   (2018/C 161/88)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Lucchini SpA (Livorno, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Take account of the infringements established in the judgments of the Court of Justice annulling Commission Decision C (2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), and accordingly annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 17 January 2018 and order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the fine unlawfully imposed and paid, together with interest;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s rejection decision contained in the letter of 9 March 2018 and order the Commission to allow the applicant to take part in procedure COMP/37.956, which will have to be reopened by the Commission in order to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice;

               —

               In the alternative, order compensation to be paid to the applicant in the amount of not less than EUR 10 million or another amount to be determined during the course of the proceedings or whatever amount the Court deems equitable as an adequate penalty for the established infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant points out that the Court of Justice has annulled Commission Decision C (2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 concerning an infringement of Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars) (1) and states that, in disregard of the wording of that annulment, the defendant has refused to reimburse the fine paid and has not invited the applicant to participate in the administrative procedure, which has been reopened in the meantime.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of Articles 10 to 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance), (2) in particular the infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing in accordance with the law and, first and foremost, of its rights of defence.

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicant submits that the participation of Member States in hearings is not a pure formality, as the competition authorities are part of the committee which must be consulted by the Commission before it takes any decision. Those competition authorities must always take part in plenary hearings, the crux of the proceedings in which the undertakings’ defence and the Commission’s case are heard inter partes.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to good administration.

      (1)  Judgments of 21 September 2017: Feralpi v Commission, C-85/15 P (EU:C:2017:709); Joined Cases C-86/15 P, Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission, and C-87/15 P, Alfa Acciai v Commission (EU:C:2017:717); Ferriere Nord v Commission, C-88/15 P (EU:C:2017:716); and Riva Fire v Commission, C-89/15 P, (EU:C:2017:713).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18.


title: Case C-642/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/14

         Appeal brought on 15 November 2017 by Arrigoni SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2017 in Case T-454/16 Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)
   (Case C-642/17 P)
   (2018/C 161/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Arrigoni SpA (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Arrigoni Battista SpA
   By Order of 22 March 2018, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Arrigoni SpA to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-191/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/71

         Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
   (Case T-191/18)
   (2018/C 161/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Design at issue: European Union design No 762851-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1203/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-110/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-110/18)
   (2018/C 161/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: José Manuel Burgos Pérez and María del Amor Guinea Bueno

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-192/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/72

         Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)
   (Case T-192/18)
   (2018/C 161/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Design at issue: International registration No DM/073118-3 designating the European Union

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1244/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare the effect of the international registration of design DM/073118-3 in the European Union to be null and void;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-67/18 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Dominique Bilde against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-633/16, Bilde v Parliament

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/14

         Appeal brought on 30 January 2018 by Dominique Bilde against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-633/16, Bilde v Parliament
   (Case C-67/18 P)
   (2018/C 161/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Dominique Bilde (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should reverse the judgment under appeal and thus:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 40 320 was wrongly paid to Ms Dominique Bilde’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum;

               —

               annul also debit note No 2016-889 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 29 June 2016;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The first ground alleges lack of competence on the part of the author of the act:

                           —

                           it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions;

                           —

                           there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General;

                           —

                           objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and the right to an impartial process.

               2.

               The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:

                           —

                           the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France.

               3.

               The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:

                           —

                           the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence;

                           —

                           the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party;

                           —

                           the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure;

                           —

                           the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing.

               4.

               The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:

                           —

                           the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred.

               5.

               The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:

                           —

                           the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value.

               6.

               The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:

                           —

                           there were no rules laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament.

               7.

               The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:

                           —

                           the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities.

               8.

               The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:

                           —

                           the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament.

               9.

               The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:

                           —

                           the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work.

               10.

               The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:

                           —

                           the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant;

                           —

                           the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims.

               11.

               The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:

                           —

                           the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to October 2014.


title: Case C-70/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A and Others
   (Case C-70/18)
   (2018/C 161/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Other parties: A, B, P

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 (1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 1 be interpreted as not precluding a national rule providing for the general processing and storage of the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, in a filing system within the meaning of Article 2(a) and (b) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281[, p. 31]) on the ground that that national rule does not go further than is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective, pursued by that rule, of preventing and combating identity fraud and document fraud?

                           (b)

                           Is it significant in this regard that the duration of the storage of the biometric data is linked to the duration of the lawful and/or illegal stay of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals?

               2.

               Must Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that a national rule does not constitute a restriction, within the meaning of those provisions, if the effect of that national rule on access to employment, as referred to in those provisions, is too uncertain and too indirect to be regarded as constituting an obstacle to such access?

               3.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 2 is that a national rule which makes it possible to make available to third parties the biometric data of third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, contained in a filing system, with a view to the prevention, detection and investigation of offences — whether or not of a terrorist nature — constitutes a new restriction, must Article 52(1), read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding such a national rule?

                           (b)

                           Is it significant in this regard that that third-country national, at the time when he is detained on suspicion of having committed an offence, has in his possession the residence document on which his biometric data are stored?

      (1)  Decisions of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.


title: Case C-111/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-111/18)
   (2018/C 161/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case C-112/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA) v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA) v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-112/18)
   (2018/C 161/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación de Productores de Energías Renovables (APPA)

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case C-113/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Parc del Segre, S.A. and Others v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Parc del Segre, S.A. and Others v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-113/18)
   (2018/C 161/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Parc del Segre, S.A., Electra Irache, S.L., Genhidro Generación Hidroeléctrica, S.L., Hicenor, S.L., Hidroeléctrica Carrascosa, S.L., Hidroeléctrica del Carrión, S.L., Hidroeléctrica del Pisuerga, S.L., Hidroeléctrica Santa Marta, S.L., Hyanor, S.L. and Promotora del Rec dels Quatre Pobles, S.A.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


201805250261897462018/C 200/282072018CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180322222321Case C-207/18: Action brought on 22 March 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2210120180322EN0028221232Action brought on 22 March 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-207/18)2018/C 200/28Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, G. von Rintelen and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (
                  1
               ) or, in any event, by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

            —

            impose on the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 123928,64, with effect from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt, or, in any event, to notify to the Commission, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU;

            —

            order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, and immediately to inform the Commission thereof.
   Given that the Kingdom of Spain has failed fully to transpose Directive 2014/26/EU and has failed to notify the Commission of the transposition measures, the Commission has instituted the present proceedings before the Court of Justice.
   The Commission proposes that the Kingdom of Spain should be ordered to pay, from the date of delivery of the judgment, a daily penalty of EUR 123928,64, calculated with due regard to the seriousness and duration of the infringement as well as to the need to ensure a deterrent effect in the light of the financial capacity of that Member State.
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.


201805250051897382018/C 200/17652017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419141411Case C-65/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of ‘certain cross-border interest’ — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1410120180419EN0017141141Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-65/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of ‘certain cross-border interest’ — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27)’2018/C 200/17Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

      Defendants: C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte
   Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Torino (TO1)

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            When awarding a public service contract that falls within the scope of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and is, consequently, in principle, subject only to Articles 14 and 16 of that directive, a contracting authority is nonetheless also required to comply with the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the consequent obligation of transparency, provided that, at the date of its award, the contract had certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to verify.

            2.

            Article 27(3) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as not applying to public service contracts referred to in Annex I B to that directive.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


201805250061897522018/C 200/18752017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419141522Case C-75/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1420120180419EN0018142152Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Residencial Palladium, SL
   (Case C-75/17 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65 — Unregistered trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Conditions — Sign of more than merely local significance — Right to prohibit the use of a later trade mark)’2018/C 200/18Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Appellant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Residencial Palladium, SL (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, abogado)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts SL to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


201806150591955012018/C 231/482682018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427383811Case T-268/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3810120180427EN0048381381Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Sandrone v EUIPO — J. Garcia Carrion (Luciano Sandrone)
   (Case T-268/18)2018/C 231/48Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Luciano Sandrone (Barolo, Italy) (represented by: A. Borra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J. Garcia Carrion, SA (Jumilla, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Luciano Sandrone’ — Application for registration No 14 416 598

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 in Case R 1207/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Lack of evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark in accordance with Article 42 (2) and (3) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

            —

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


201806150851955162018/C 231/225842013TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517192021Case T-584/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance fipronil — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substance in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Impact assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1910120180517EN0022191202Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — BASF Agro and Others v Commission
   (Case T-584/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Plant protection products — Active substance fipronil — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substance in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Impact assessment)’2018/C 231/22Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: BASF Agro BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) and the six other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. de Seze and É. Mullier, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister), European Seed Association (ESA) (Brussels) (represented initially by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Soltau, Germany), Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund (Großebersdorf, Austria), Österreichischer Imkerbund (ÖIB) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Willand and B. Tschida, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 22).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing this active substance;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BASF Agro BV and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex, as well as those incurred by the Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) and the European Seed Association (ESA);

            4.

            Orders Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund and Österreichischer Imkerbund (ÖIB) to bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


201806220171970682018/C 240/333072018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507293132Case C-307/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Competition Appeal Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 7 May 2018 — Generics (UK) Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC, Actavis UK Ltd and Merck KGaA v Competition and Markets Authority
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2920120180507EN0033292313Reference for a preliminary ruling from Competition Appeal Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 7 May 2018 — Generics (UK) Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC, Actavis UK Ltd and Merck KGaA v Competition and Markets Authority
   (Case C-307/18)2018/C 240/33Language of the case: English
      Referring court

   Competition Appeal Tribunal, London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Generics (UK) Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC, Actavis UK Ltd and Merck KGaA

      Defendant: Competition and Markets Authority

      Questions referred

   Potential competition

            1.

            For the purpose of Article 101(1) TFEU, are the holder of a patent for a pharmaceutical drug and a generic company seeking to enter the market with a generic version of the drug to be regarded as potential competitors when the parties are in bona fide dispute as to whether the patent is valid and/or the generic product infringes the patent?

            2.

            Does the answer to Question 1 differ if:

                     (a)

                     there are pending court proceedings between the parties involving this dispute; and/or

                     (b)

                     the patent-holder has obtained an interim injunction preventing the generic company from launching its generic product on the market until determination of those proceedings; and/or

                     (c)

                     the patent holder regards the generic company as a potential competitor?

      Restriction by object

            3.

            When there are pending court proceedings concerning the validity of a patent for a pharmaceutical drug and whether a generic product infringes that patent, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of either party succeeding in those proceedings, is there a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purpose of Article 101(1) when the parties make an agreement to settle that litigation whereby:

                     (a)

                     the generic company agrees not to enter the market with its generic product and not to continue its challenge to the patent for the duration of the agreement (which is no longer than the unexpired period of the patent), and

                     (b)

                     the patent holder agrees to make a transfer of value to the generic company in an amount substantially greater than the avoided litigation costs (including management time and disruption) and which does not constitute payment for any goods or services supplied to the patent holder?

            4.

            Does the answer to Question 3 differ if:

                     (a)

                     the scope of the restriction on the generic company does not go beyond the scope of the patent in dispute; and/or

                     (b)

                     the amount of the value transfer to the generic company may be less than the profit it would have made if it had instead succeeded in the patent litigation and entered the market with an independent generic product?

            5.

            Do the answers to Questions 3 and 4 differ if the agreement provides for the supply by the patent holder to the generic company of significant but limited volumes of authorised generic product and that agreement:

                     (a)

                     does not give rise to any meaningful competitive constraint on the prices charged by the patent holder; but

                     (b)

                     brings some benefits to consumers which would not have occurred if the patent holder had succeeded in the litigation, but which are significantly less than the full competitive benefits resulting from independent generic entry which would have occurred if the generic company had succeeded in the litigation, or is this relevant only to assessment under Article 101(3)?

      Restriction by effect

            6.

            In the circumstances set out in Questions 3-5, is there a restriction of competition ‘by effect’ for the purpose of Article 101(1) or does that depend upon the court finding that in the absence of that settlement:

                     (a)

                     the generic company would probably have succeeded in the patent proceedings (i.e. that the chance that the patent was valid and infringed was below 50 %); alternatively

                     (b)

                     the parties would probably have entered into a less restrictive settlement (i.e. that the chance of a less restrictive settlement was above 50 %)?

      Market definition

            7.

            Where a patented pharmaceutical drug is therapeutically substitutable with a number of other drugs in a class, and the alleged abuse for the purpose of Article 102 is conduct by the patent holder that effectively excludes generic versions of that drug from the market, are those generic products to be taken into account for the purpose of defining the relevant product market, although they could not lawfully enter the market before expiry of the patent if (which is uncertain) the patent is valid and infringed by those generic products?

      Abuse

            8.

            In the circumstances set out in Questions 3-5 above, if the patent holder is in a dominant position, does its conduct in entering into such an agreement constitute an abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU?

            9.

            Does the answer to Question 8 differ if the patent holder makes an agreement of that kind not in settlement of actual litigation but to avoid litigation being commenced?

            10.

            Does the answer to Question 8 or 9 differ if:

                     (a)

                     the patent holder pursues a strategy of entering into several such agreements to preclude the risk of unrestricted generic entry; and

                     (b)

                     the consequence of the first such agreement is that by reason of the structure of the national arrangements for reimbursement by the public health authorities to pharmacies of their costs of purchasing pharmaceutical drugs, the reimbursement level for the pharmaceutical drug in question is reduced, resulting in a substantial saving to the public health authorities (albeit a saving which is significantly less than that which would arise upon independent generic entry following a successful outcome for the generic company in patent litigation); and

                     (c)

                     that saving was no part of the intention of the parties when entering into any of the agreements?


201806220251970762018/C 240/066422016CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805175511Case C-642/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade-mark law — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 13 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New labelling — Conditions applicable to medical devices)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN510120180517EN00065151Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-642/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade-mark law — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 13 — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the mark — New labelling — Conditions applicable to medical devices)’2018/C 240/06Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

      Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark cannot oppose the further commercialisation, by a parallel importer, of a medical device in its original internal and external packaging where an additional label, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, has been added by the importer, which, by its content, function, size, presentation and placement, does not give rise to a risk to the guarantee of origin of the medical device bearing the mark.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


201806220781970272018/C 240/653112018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517565611Case T-311/18: Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5610120180517EN0065561561Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)
   (Case T-311/18)2018/C 240/65Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Društvo za proizvodnju inženjering i usluge Buck d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: I. Lázaro Betancor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unger Holding GmbH (Herne, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BUCK in colours white and red — International registration designating the European Union No 1 218 386

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2018 in Case R 1024/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

            —

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


201806220361970382018/C 240/343302018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507313331Case C-330/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2018 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3110120180507EN0034311333Appeal brought on 7 May 2018 by Bruno Gollnisch against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case C-330/18 P)2018/C 240/34Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   With regard to the judgment under appeal, the appellant submits that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 in Case T-624/16;

            —

            rule on the questions raised in accordance with case-law;

            —

            refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to be adjudged afresh;

            —

            award the appellant the sum of EUR 12500 in respect of procedural costs incurred in the context of the appeal;

            —

            order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      In the event of the appeal being upheld, the appellant submits that the Court should:

            —

            if it considers that it has sufficient information, itself rule on the substance of the case;

            —

            annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, the notification and implementing measures set out in the letter of the Director-General for Finance of 6 July 2016, and debit note No 2016-914 of 5 July 2016;

            —

            grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

            —

            award the appellant the sum of EUR 20000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

            —

            order the Parliament to pay all costs.

      In the alternative, the appellant requests the Court to:

            —

            decide that the proceedings are to be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings brought in France;

            —

            rule that the implementation of the decision of the Secretary-General is to be suspended in the meantime and that sums deducted in that regard are to be repaid in full to the appellant.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

            1.

            First ground of appeal, alleging that the Secretary-General lacks competence and that Article 25(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament has been infringed
            The judgment under appeal recognises the Secretary-General as having decision-making power, enabling him alone to declare the existence of an undue payment, whereas, under the rules and earlier case-law, he has merely power to investigate, to propose and to implement.

            2.

            Second ground of appeal, alleging disregard of the principles ‘una via electa’ and ‘le penal tient le civil en état’ (‘civil proceedings must be stayed pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings’)
            The judgment under appeal wrongly finds that the principle relied on is a matter of national law and not European law and that the case in question has not given rise to any criminal aspect.

            3.

            Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of defence
            The judgment under appeal: (1) failed to restore the appellant’s fundamental right to be heard, even though he has been deprived of that right throughout the proceedings; (2) validated the description of mere suspicions that the administration of the Parliament had given, whereas they were allegations, for that matter baseless, made against the appellant during the proceedings, and the changing and imprecise nature of those allegations constituted an obstacle impeding the presentation of an effective defence; (3) disregarded the consequences of the administration’s failure to respond to the appellant’s correspondence questioning the administration on the exact nature of the evidence of his assistant’s work that they expected from him.

            4.

            Fourth ground of appeal, alleging discriminatory treatment and fumus persecutionis, as well as an improper reversal of the burden of proof
            The judgment under appeal did not categorise the indicia of discriminatory treatment and fumus persecutionis as being so, and found that the case-law relied on by the appellant could not apply by analogy to cases of political discrimination.

            5.

            Fifth ground of appeal, alleging inadequacy of the grounds and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
            The judgment under appeal wrongly found that the intermediary documents relating to the procedure for the recovery of undue payments had no legal value in relation to the validity of that procedure and, therefore, to that of the final measure. The judgment under appeal therefore failed to draw consequences from the fact that both the changing nature of the grounds of judgment and the administration’s failure to respond to the appellant’s requests for clarification did not enable him to know how he was to demonstrate that no offence had been committed.

            6.

            Sixth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations
            The judgment under appeal held that the need for a member of Parliament to retain the evidence of his assistants’ work is neither retroactive nor binding.

            7.

            Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an incorrect description of the evidence, a distortion of the facts and contradictory grounds
            The judgment under appeal unilaterally presented, a posteriori, without legal basis and without consistent reasoning, a theory of recognised and admissible forms of evidence of the assistant’s work, arbitrarily rejected those which the appellant had presented and criticised him for not having provided new evidence in the course of the proceedings.

            8.

            Eighth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
            The judgment under appeal finds, on the one hand, that the implementing measures do not give the Secretary-General any margin of discretion to take a decision and, on the other hand, that the appellant did not develop sufficient arguments against the implementing measures or the legal rules upon which those measures are based.


201806220411970822018/C 240/663122018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180514565722Case T-312/18: Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5620120180514EN0066562572Action brought on 14 May 2018 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)
   (Case T-312/18)2018/C 240/66Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Dentsply De Trey GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: S. Clark, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IDS SpA (Savona, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark AQUAPRINT — Application for registration No 12 272 407

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 in Case R 1438/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision except in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the goods are identical/similar and that the relevant public is specialized in the dental field;

            —

            order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Dentsply in the present proceedings;

            —

            alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO that the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred by the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law

            —

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

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806220691970212018/C 240/355772015TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529343411Case T-577/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SHERPA — Earlier national word mark SHERPA — Partial declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3410120180529EN0035341341Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA)
   (Case T-577/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SHERPA — Earlier national word mark SHERPA — Partial declaration of invalidity — Subject matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/35Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Xavier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2015 (Case R 1135/2014-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Núcleo de comunicaciones y control and Mr Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 July 2015 (Case R 1135/2014-2) as regards the goods designated by the contested mark in Class 9;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Xavier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez;

            4.

            Orders Mr Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez to bear two thirds of his own costs;

            5.

            Orders Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


201806220681970452018/C 240/491972017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504444411Case T-197/17: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Abel and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Environment — Adoption by the Commission of a regulation concerning polluting emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles — Claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants — Harm not real and certain — Situation capable of materially affecting any person — Harm not capable of being compensated — Application for an injunction)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4410120180504EN0049441441Order of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Abel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-197/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Non-contractual liability — Environment — Adoption by the Commission of a regulation concerning polluting emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles — Claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants — Harm not real and certain — Situation capable of materially affecting any person — Harm not capable of being compensated — Application for an injunction)’2018/C 240/49Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Abel (Montreuil, France), and the 1 428 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. Huttunen and A. Becker, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicants following the adoption of Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            Mr Marc Abel and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment are ordered to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 151, 15.5.2018.


201806220571970422018/C 240/673142018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515575821Case T-314/18: Action brought on 15 May 2018 — Hashem and Assi v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5710120180515EN0067571582Action brought on 15 May 2018 — Hashem and Assi v SRB
   (Case T-314/18)2018/C 240/67Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicants: Hashem Asad Mohammad Hashem (Amman, Jordan) and Souhair H. B. Assi (Amman) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

            —

            Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and omissions which resulted in the applicants losing in full their investments in subordinated bonds of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A.;

            —

            Order the Board to pay to the applicants, as compensation for the harm suffered by them, an amount for reimbursement of the investments made of EUR 5571434,73in Banco Popular shares or, in the alternative, in relation to the latter, EUR 2341142,51;

            —

            Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;

            —

            Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the ECB for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

            —

            Order the Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017 C 424, p. 42).


201806220451970562018/C 240/502062017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516444522Case T-206/17: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EUBAM Libya (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Competitive negotiated procedure — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of one tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Circumstances subsequent to the award of the tender — Substantial change in the original terms of the contract — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4420120180516EN0050442452Order of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EUBAM Libya
   (Case T-206/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Competitive negotiated procedure — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of one tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Circumstances subsequent to the award of the tender — Substantial change in the original terms of the contract — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)’2018/C 240/50Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Aalto and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents), European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (represented by: E. Raoult, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EUBAM Libya of 24 January 2017 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services as part of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

            1)

            Dismisses the application;

            2)

            Orders Argus Security Projects Ltd to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


201806220271970292018/C 240/07302017CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805175622Case C-30/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Excise duties — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 3(1) — Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Beer — Flavoured beer — Degree Plato — Method of calculation)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN520120180517EN00075262Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu
   (Case C-30/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Excise duties — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 3(1) — Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Beer — Flavoured beer — Degree Plato — Method of calculation)’2018/C 240/07Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

      Defendant: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine the basis of assessment for flavoured beers according to the Plato scale, the dry extract of the original wort must be taken into consideration but not the aromatic substances or sugar syrup added after the completion of fermentation.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


201806220421970162018/C 240/365662016TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517353511Case T-566/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 – Josefsson v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN3510120180517EN0036351351Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 – Josefsson v Parliament
   (Case T-566/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)’2018/C 240/36Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Erik Josefsson (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially M. Dean and L. Deneys, then by M. Dean and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 19 December 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, compensation in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment of the European Parliament dated 19 December 2014 concerning the termination of Erik Josefsson’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 27, 25.1.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-138/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


201806220201970712018/C 240/082292017CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805176611Case C-229/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Free allocation — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Annex I — Decision 2011/278/EU — Annex I, Part 2 — Determination of product benchmarks — Production of hydrogen — System boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen — Process element of separation of hydrogen in a rich gas stream which already contains hydrogen)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN610120180517EN00086161Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-229/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Free allocation — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Annex I — Decision 2011/278/EU — Annex I, Part 2 — Determination of product benchmarks — Production of hydrogen — System boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen — Process element of separation of hydrogen in a rich gas stream which already contains hydrogen)’2018/C 240/08Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Operative part of the judgment

   Annex I, Part 2, to Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that a process, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not produce hydrogen by chemical synthesis, but only isolates hydrogen already contained in a gas mixture, does not fall within the system boundaries of the product benchmark for hydrogen. It would be otherwise only if that process, first, is associated with ‘production of hydrogen’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 and, second, have a technical connection with it.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


201806220701970632018/C 240/514702017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515454511Case T-470/17: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (senso tek) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark senso tek — Earlier EU figurative mark SENSOTEC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4510120180515EN0051451451Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (senso tek)
   (Case T-470/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark senso tek — Earlier EU figurative mark SENSOTEC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)’2018/C 240/51Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Sensotek GmbH (Reichenbach an der Fils, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Senso Tecnologie Srl (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 (Case R 1953/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Senso Tecnologie and Sensotek.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

            1)

            Dismisses the action;

            2)

            Orders Sensotek GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


201806290221986342018/C 249/082392018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804035621Case C-239/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN510120180403EN00085162Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen
   (Case C-239/18)2018/C 249/08Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Defendant: Freistaat Thüringen

      Questions referred

            1.

            Does a right to information from official bodies under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 (
                  1
               ) exist in a situation where a request relates solely to information concerning species of plants, without the request for information also seeking information on a protected variety?

            2.

            If the answer to Question 1 is that such a right to information can exist:

                     (a)

                     Is a body which monitors subsidies for farmers from EU funds and, in that respect, stores data which relate to (plant) species obtained from farmers who apply for those subsidies to be regarded as an official body involved in the monitoring of agricultural production within the meaning of the first indent of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95?

                     (b)

                     Is an official body justified in withholding the requested information if the provision of that information requires the data which it holds to be processed and catalogued by a third party and if doing so would require financial expense in the region of EUR 6000? In that regard, is it relevant whether the person making the request is prepared to meet the costs incurred?

      (
         1
      )	Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14).


201806290241986752018/C 249/202902018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426141521Case C-290/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1410120180426EN0020141152Action brought on 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-290/18)2018/C 249/20Language of the case: Portuguese
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Hermes, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

            —

            declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (
                  1
               ) in not designating as special areas of conservation as soon as possible, and within six years at most, seven sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region recognised by Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 (
                  2
               ) and 54 sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region recognised by Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006; (
                  3
               )

            —

            declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in not adopting the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the seven sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region recognised in Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004, and on the 54 sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region recognised by Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006;

            —

            order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Portuguese Republic ought to have designated as special areas of conservation seven sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, recognised by Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004, and 54 sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, recognised by Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006, within six years at most from the date on which those decisions were adopted. The period referred to expired on 7 December 2010 and 19 July 2012, respectively. However, the Portuguese Republic has still not designated the sites of Community importance as special areas of conservation.
   Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires the Member States to establish, for special areas of conservation, the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.
   The Commission considers the measures adopted by the Portuguese Republic, in particular, the Natura 2000 Network sectoral plan, as well as other measures referred to by the Portuguese authorities, do not correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II of the Directive and cannot, therefore, be considered ‘necessary conservation measures’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive.
   (
         1
      )	Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
   (
         2
      )	Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).
   (
         3
      )	Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1).


201806290521986652018/C 249/59232018TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529454515Case T-23/18: Order of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN4550120180529EN0059455451Order of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Nova Brands v EUIPO — Natamil (Natamil)
   (Case T-23/18) (
         1
      )2018/C 249/59Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


201806290491986572018/C 249/342582017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606282811Case T-258/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Arbuzov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2810120180606EN0034281281Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Arbuzov v Council
   (Case T-258/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)’2018/C 249/34Language of the case: Czech
      Parties

      Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and J.-P. Hix, acint as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (JO 2017 L 58, p. 34), in so far as the applicant’s name was included or maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Sergej Arbuzov’s name was maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

            2.

            Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


201806290761986722018/C 249/352642017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606282922Case T-264/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2820120180606EN0035282292Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)
   (Case T-264/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)’2018/C 249/35Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swep International and Uponor Innovation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the General Court;

            3.

            Orders Swep International AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.