title: Case T-813/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Conditions for admission — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Error of law)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission
      (Case T-813/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 - Conditions for admission - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Error of law)
      (2019/C 230/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Mihaylova and L. Radu Bouyon, and subsequently by L. Radu Bouyon, D. Milanowska and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 14 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the competition selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit Ms Eleni Nerantzaki to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR — Absolute ground for invalidity — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Bad faith)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR)
      (Joined Cases T-3/18 and T-4/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative marks ANN TAYLOR and AT ANN TAYLOR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Bad faith)
      (2019/C 230/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner, E. Preston, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, QC)

         Re:

      Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 and of 8 November 2017 (Cases R 2370/2016-2 and R 2371/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Annco and Holzer y Cia.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the actions;

                  2.

                     Orders Holzer y Cia, SA de CV to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Annco, Inc.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-12/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Triumph — Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical signs — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)
      (Case T-12/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Triumph - Earlier EU word mark TRIUMPH - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical signs - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (initially represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by P. Ruess, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 (Case R 665/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Triumph Designs and Zweirad-Center Stadler.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

                  3.

                     Orders Triumph Designs Ltd to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-37/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Brave Paper — Earlier national word mark BRAVO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Conceptual similarity)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper)
      (Case T-37/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Brave Paper - Earlier national word mark BRAVO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Conceptual similarity)
      (2019/C 230/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Pruszczyk, 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: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Grübler, S. Engels and C. Engelmann, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 391/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Bauer Verlag and Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL — Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Translation — Rights of the defence — Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL)
      (Joined Cases T-89/18 and T-90/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU word and figurative marks Café del Sol and CAFE DEL SOL - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Translation - Rights of the defence - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

         Re:

      Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2017 (Cases R 1095/2017-4 and R 1096/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-99/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Rejection of application — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency — Liability)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stamatopoulos v ENISA
      (Case T-99/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Rejection of application - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency - Liability)
      (2019/C 230/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grigorios Stamatopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of ENISA’s decision of 25 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Finance and Procurement and, second, for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Grigorios Stamatopoulos to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-104/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Development of a system to monitor process and quality in the sector of industrial food production — Food-Watch Project — Overlap of the project with another project funded under the same programme — Information requirements on beneficiaries — Decision to demand repayment of the financial contribution paid under the grant agreement)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
      (Case T-104/18) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Development of a system to monitor process and quality in the sector of industrial food production - Food-Watch Project - Overlap of the project with another project funded under the same programme - Information requirements on beneficiaries - Decision to demand repayment of the financial contribution paid under the grant agreement)
      (2019/C 230/47)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

         Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking, in essence, a declaration that the applicant is not required to repay the grant awarded for the project FP7-SME 2013 605879 (Food-Watch).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-269/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZARA — Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)
      (Case T-269/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ZARA - Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 230/50)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy) (represented by: P. Creta, A. Lanzarini, B. Costa, A. Sponzilli and M. Lazzarotto, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia and Inditex.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia SA and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), as regards ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats’ in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, ‘rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; rice-based snack food’ in Class 30, ‘fresh vegetables’ in Class 31, ‘fresh juices’ in Class 32, ‘retailing and wholesaling in shops, selling via global computer networks, by catalogue, by mail order, by telephone, by radio and television, and via other electronic means of preserved, frozen, dried and cooked vegetables; edible oils, rice, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, vinegar, sauces (condiments)’ in Class 35 and ‘restaurant services (food), self-service restaurants, cafeterias’ in Class 43;

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO and Ffauf Italia to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) in the proceedings before the General Court.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-325/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a pink bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)
      (Case T-325/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a pink bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/52)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy) (represented by: R. Galli, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1037/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-354/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYFi — Earlier national and EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Identity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Misuse of powers — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi)
      (Case T-354/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYFi - Earlier national and EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Identity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Misuse of powers - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: KID-Systeme GmbH (Buxtehude, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sky Ltd, formerly Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Saliger, Solicitor, and P. Roberts QC)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2018 (Case R 106/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and KID-Systeme.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders KID-Systeme GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-465/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
      (Case T-465/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/54)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1358/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-466/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
      (Case T-466/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 230/55)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1359/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-469/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)
      (Case T-469/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HEATCOAT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration)
      (2019/C 230/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2018 (Case R 36/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign HEATCOAT as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Battelle Memorial Institute to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case T-629/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble — Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal — Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for — Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — mobile.de v EUIPO (Representation of a car in a speech bubble)
      (Case T-629/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a car in a speech bubble - Admissibility of the action before the Board of Appeal - Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Restriction of the list of goods or services covered by the mark applied for - Article 27(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to adjudicate on a request for restriction)
      (2019/C 230/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a car in a speech bubble.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2018 (Case R 2653/2017-4);

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case T-237/18: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark M — Withdrawal of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/46

      Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)
      (Case T-237/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark M - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 230/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2018 (Case R 1755/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olympique de Marseille and Martini-Sportswear.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Martini-Sportswear GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-281/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/47

      Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — ABLV Bank v ECB
      (Case T-281/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 230/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that the applicant and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     ABLV Bank AS shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-283/18: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/48

      Order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 — Bernis and Others v ECB
      (Case T-283/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Parent company and subsidiary - Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Preparatory measures - Acts not open to judicial review - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 230/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: G. Marafioti and E. Koupepidou, acting as Agents, and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that ABLV Bank AS and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Mr Ernests Bernis, Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-330/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment and damages — Environment — Greenhouse gas emissions — 2030 climate and energy package — Directive (EU) 2018/410 — Regulation (EU) 2018/842 — Regulation (EU) 2018/841 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/49

      Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-330/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment and damages - Environment - Greenhouse gas emissions - 2030 climate and energy package - Directive (EU) 2018/410 - Regulation (EU) 2018/842 - Regulation (EU) 2018/841 - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 230/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Armando Carvalho (Santa Comba Dão, Portugal) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: G. Winter, Professor, R. Verheyen, lawyer, and H. Leith, Barrister)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment in part of Directive (EU) 2018/410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2018 amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 (OJ 2018 L 76, p. 3), in particular Article 1 thereof, Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 26), in particular Article 4(2) thereof and Annex I thereto, and Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 1), in particular Article 4 thereof, and, second, compensation under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU in the form of an injunction for the damage that the applicants claim to have suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe SCE mbH, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the European Commission.

                  3.

                     Mr Armando Carvalho and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

                  4.

                     Climate Action Network Europe, WeMove Europe, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft and the Commission are to bear their own costs in relation to their applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case T-396/18: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product — Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products — Delegated Regulation and implementing acts — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/50

      Order of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — ITSA v Commission
      (Case T-396/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product - Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products - Delegated Regulation and implementing acts - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 230/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.7), and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p 57).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                     International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

                  4.

                     The Council shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case T-422/18: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State — Documents originating from the applicant — Third party access request — Initial decision to grant partial access — Lack of purpose — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/50

      Order of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — RATP v Commission
      (Case T-422/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State - Documents originating from the applicant - Third party access request - Initial decision to grant partial access - Lack of purpose - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 230/63)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, and subsequently by P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, W. Mölls and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of 5 March 2018 on a request for access to documents originating from the RATP in so far as it grants partial access to those documents.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-473/18: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/51

      Order of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Getsmarter Online v EUIPO (getsmarter)
      (Case T-473/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark getsmarter - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 230/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Getsmarter Online Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Silcock, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider, A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2632/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign getsmarter as a European Union trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Getsmarter Online Ltd shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case T-517/18: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2019 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Designer’s degree of freedom — Informed user — Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/52

      Order of the General Court of 10 May 2019 — Zott v EUIPO — TSC Food Products (Ready-to-eat rectangular cake)
      (Case T-517/18) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a ready-to-eat rectangular cake - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Designer’s degree of freedom - Informed user - Article 4(1), Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 230/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Zott SE & Co. KG (Mertingen, Germany) (represented by: E. Schalast, R. Lange and C. Böhler, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: TSC Food Products GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: M. Gaderer, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 (Case R 1341/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TSC Food Products and Zott.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Zott SE & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.


title: Case T-806/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA

text:
               12.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/37

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA
   (Case T-806/17)
   (2018/C 052/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) and REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul decision DSH-30-3-D-0122-2017 of the European Chemicals Agency dated 2 October 2017 granting access to the joint submission of substance hexasodium 2,2’-[vinylenebis [(3-sulphonato-4,1-phenylene)imino [6-(diethylamino)-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl]imino]] bis(benzene-1,4-disulphonate) (EC No. 255-217-5);

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings;

               —

               take such other or further measure as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Chemicals Agency (the ‘Agency’) committed a vitiating error of fact, by excluding relevant facts from the basis of the contested decision

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the Agency, by entirely overlooking the efforts of the parties made prior to 2017 and by making factually erroneous findings regarding the identity of the first applicant and the date of submission of the reply to the Agency’s request for information; relies on a wrong determination of facts which are contrary to the principle of good administration and vitiate the contested decision to the extent that it must be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed manifest errors of assessment, by failing to evaluate all the relevant facts and circumstances, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants and by failing to take into account Article 25 of the REACH Regulation (1)

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the situation the contested decision is intended to govern, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants, by failing to consider the specific facts of the dispute before it and by failing to take into account the applicants’ concerns regarding the duplication of vertebrate animal tests by the claimant, contrary to Article 25 of the REACH Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency infringed the principle of legal certainty by placing the applicants in an unacceptable position of legal certainty as regards the claimant’s ability to rely on the applicants’ data and the quality and compliance of the claimant’s data

                           —

                           The applicants consider that the Agency, in adopting the contested decision, infringed the principle of legal certainty, as it does not limit the access granted to the applicants’ joint submission even though the claimant is registering by way of a full opt-out and since the Agency did not address the issues with the full opt-out dossier (quality and possible duplication of vertebrate studies). The applicants are therefore in a situation of legal uncertainty as to how to protect their rights, since the scope and extent of the rights granted to the claimant remain opaque.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached its duty to state reasons, by failing to explain why it did not consider any of the correspondence before 2017 relevant

                           —

                           The Agency adopted its contested decision by relying on a mere fraction of the negotiations that occurred between the parties and arbitrarily limited its review to the few exchanges between the parties that occurred from January 2017 onwards. The applicants had submitted all correspondence on the substance between the claimant and the applicants, highlighting why such correspondence is relevant. Despite the applicants’ explanation as to the relevance of the correspondence, the Agency did not provide any reasons as to why it did not consider, and in fact it completely ignored, the communications between the applicants and SSS before January 2017.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).


title: Case C-675/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato lodged on 30 November 2017 — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl

text:
               12.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato lodged on 30 November 2017 — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl
   (Case C-675/17)
   (2018/C 052/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministero della Salute

      Respondent: Hannes Preindl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the Directive (1) require a Member State, in which the full-time training requirement is in force, and the corresponding ban on enrolling in two degree courses at the same time, automatically to recognise qualifications obtained in the home Member State simultaneously or during periods that in part overlap.

               2.

               If so, can Article 22(a) and Article 21 of the Directive be interpreted to the effect that the authorities in the Member State from which recognition is sought may nevertheless ascertain whether the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of such training should not be lower than those of continuous full-time training is satisfied.

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, p. 22).


title: Case C-508/17 P: Appeal brought on 19 August 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2017 in Case T-906/16, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/7

         Appeal brought on 19 August 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2017 in Case T-906/16, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-508/17 P)
   (2018/C 123/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 8 February 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-16/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Michael Dobersberger

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Michael Dobersberger
   (Case C-16/18)
   (2018/C 123/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Michael Dobersberger

      Other party: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the scope of Directive 96/71/EC (1) of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (also referred to hereafter as the Directive for short), in particular Article 1(3)(a), also cover the provision of services such as the provision of food and drink to passengers, on-board service or cleaning services by the workers of a service-providing undertaking established in the Member State of posting (Hungary) in performance of a contract with a railway undertaking established in the host Member State (Austria) when these services are provided on international trains which also travel through the host Member State?

               2.

               Does Article 1(3)(a) of the Directive also cover the situation where the service-providing undertaking established in the Member State of posting provides the services mentioned in Question 1 not in performance of a contract with the railway undertaking established in the host Member State, which is the ultimate beneficiary of the services (recipient of the services), but rather in performance of a contract with another undertaking based in the host Member State which, in turn, is in a contractual relationship (subcontracting chain) with the railway undertaking?

               3.

               Does Article 1(3)(a) of the Directive also cover the situation where, to provide the services mentioned in Question 1, the service-providing undertaking established in the Member State of posting does not use its own workers but uses workers of another undertaking which were hired out to it back in the Member State of posting?

               4.

               Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 3: Does EU law, in particular the freedom to provide services (Article 56 and 57 TFEU), preclude a provision of national law which also mandatorily requires undertakings which post workers to the territory of another Member State for the purpose of providing a service to comply with terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive and to comply with accompanying obligations (such as, in particular, the obligation to provide a notification regarding the cross-border posting of workers to a public authority in the host Member State and the obligation to retain documents relating to the level of remuneration and to the social security registration of these workers) in situations in which (firstly) the workers posted across borders form part of the mobile staff of a railway undertaking that is active on a cross-border basis or of an undertaking which provides services typical for a railway undertaking (provision of food and drink to passengers, on-board service) on that undertaking’s trains which cross the borders of the Member States, and in which (secondly) the posting is based either on no service contract at all or at least on no service contract between the undertaking making the posting and the recipient of the services which is active in another Member State, because the posting undertaking’s obligation to provide services to the recipient of the services which is active in another Member State is established by way of subcontracts (a subcontracting chain), and in which (thirdly) the posted worker is not in an employment relationship with the undertaking making the posting but rather is in an employment relationship with a third-party undertaking which has hired out its workers to the undertaking making the posting back in the Member State in which the posting undertaking is established?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.


title: Case C-590/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 7 — General arrangements for excise duty — Supply of petroleum products, without charging excise duty — Filling stations at the border of the Hellenic Republic with third countries — Chargeability of excise duty — Concept of ‘release for consumption’ of excise goods — Concept of ‘departure from a duty suspension arrangement’)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-590/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 7 - General arrangements for excise duty - Supply of petroleum products, without charging excise duty - Filling stations at the border of the Hellenic Republic with third countries - Chargeability of excise duty - Concept of ‘release for consumption’ of excise goods - Concept of ‘departure from a duty suspension arrangement’))
   (2018/C 123/05)
   Language of the case: Greece

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.–M. Mamouna and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and retaining in force legislation allowing the sale of tax-exempted petroleum products by the filling stations of Katastimata Aforologiton Eidon AE at the border posts of Kipoi Evrou (Greece), Kakavia (Greece) and Evzonoi (Greece) which are all situated in regions bordering third countries, namely the Republic of Turkey, the Republic of Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-711/14: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2018 — Arcofin and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid implemented by Belgium in favour of the ARCO Group financial cooperatives — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of natural persons who are individual members of those cooperatives — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Selective advantage — Measure liable to distort or threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States — Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Legitimate expectations — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/20

         Order of the General Court of 9 February 2018 — Arcofin and Others v Commission
   (Case T-711/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Belgium in favour of the ARCO Group financial cooperatives - Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of natural persons who are individual members of those cooperatives - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Selective advantage - Measure liable to distort or threaten to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Legitimate expectations - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2018/C 123/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Arcofin SCRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arcopar SCRL (Brussels), Arcoplus (Brussels) (represented by: R. Martens, A. Verlinden and C. Maczkovics, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (13/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Arcofin SCRL, Arcopar SCRL and Arcoplus shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


201806150361954842018/C 231/142252018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180328111222Case C-225/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Grupa Lotos S.A.
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1120120180328EN0014112122Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Grupa Lotos S.A.
   (Case C-225/18)2018/C 231/14Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grupa Lotos S.A.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   Are Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (
         1
      ) and the principles of neutrality and proportionality contrary to a provision such as that in Article 88(1)(4) of the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services (Dz. U. 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended; currently Dz. U. of 2017, item 1221, as amended), under which a reduction or refund of input VAT does not apply to acquisitions by a taxable person of overnight accommodation and catering services, with the exception of the purchase of ready meals prepared for passengers by taxable persons providing passenger transport services, even where these provisions were introduced into the law on the basis of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment? (
         2
      )
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


201806150421954802018/C 231/162282018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180403131421Case C-228/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1310120180403EN0016131142Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2018 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others
   (Case C-228/18)2018/C 231/16Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

      Applicants and respondents: Budapest Bank Nyrt., ING Bank NV Magyarországi Fióktelepe, OTP Bank Nyrt., Kereskedelmi és Hitelbank Zrt., Magyar Külkereskedelmi Bank Zrt., ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt., Visa Europe Ltd, MasterCard Europe SA

      Questions referred

            1.

            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the same conduct can infringe this provision both because the object of the conduct is anti-competitive and also because its effect is anti-competitive, with the two cases being treated as separate grounds in law?

            2.

            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the agreement at issue in the proceedings, which was entered into by Hungarian banks and which establishes, in respect of the two bank card companies, MasterCard and Visa, a unitary amount for the interchange fee payable to the issuing banks for the use of the cards of those two companies, constitutes a restriction of competition by object?

            3.

            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the credit card companies can also be considered to be parties to an interbank agreement where they were not directly involved in defining the content of the agreement but facilitated its adoption and accepted and implemented it; or are these companies to be considered to have acted in concert with the banks that entered into the agreement?

            4.

            Can Article 81(1) EC [Article 101(1) TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that, in view of the subject matter of the proceedings, for the purpose of finding an infringement of competition law, it is not necessary to differentiate between participation in the agreement and acting in concert with the banks that participated in the agreement?


201806150311954892018/C 231/053762016CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805036611Case C-376/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Appeal — Public service contracts — Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Cascade procedure — Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Article 76 and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Ruling ultra petita prohibited — Weighting of sub-criteria within award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 100(2) — Decision rejecting a tender — Failure to state reasons — Loss of opportunity — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for damages)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN610120180503EN00056161Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE
   (Case C-376/16 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Public service contracts — Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Cascade procedure — Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Article 76 and Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Ruling ultra petita prohibited — Weighting of sub-criteria within award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Article 100(2) — Decision rejecting a tender — Failure to state reasons — Loss of opportunity — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for damages)’2018/C 231/05Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: N. Bambara, acting as Agent, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and V. Alevizopoulou, dikigoroi)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Sets aside points 2 to 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO (T-556/11, EU:T:2016:248);

            2.

            Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

            3.

            Dismisses the claim for damages brought by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in Case T-556/11;

            4.

            Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear their own costs in relation to both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


201806150701955312018/C 231/392432018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180420313111Case T-243/18: Action brought on 20 April 2018 — VW v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3110120180420EN0039311311Action brought on 20 April 2018 — VW v Commission
   (Case T-243/18)2018/C 231/39Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: VW (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that,

            —

            the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 June 2017 is annulled;

            —

            in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting the claim dated 19 January 2018 is annulled;

            —

            the defendant is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First and principal plea in law, raising a plea of illegality directed against Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations since it infringes the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 52 of that Charter.

            2.

            Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, in the event that the applicant were not able to rely on Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, alleging an error of law committed by the defendant institution in interpreting Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in the further alternative, if there were no error of law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and infringement of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 52 of that Charter.


201806150671955252018/C 231/452632018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426353622Case T-263/18: Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3520120180426EN0045352362Action brought on 26 April 2018 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)
   (Case T-263/18)2018/C 231/45Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o. (Nova Gorica, Slovenia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and red MEBLO — EU trade mark No 3 431 731

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 in Case R 883/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201808030592050772018/C 294/713932018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180628575821Case T-393/18: Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Mellifera v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5710120180628EN0071571582Action brought on 28 June 2018 — Mellifera v Commission
   (Case T-393/18)2018/C 294/71Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Mellifera e. V., Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Decision Ares (2018) 2087165 of the Commission, dated 19 April 2018 and notified to the applicant on 19 April 2018;

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs of the dispute.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action is based on the following plea:
   Infringement of Article 10(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g), of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (
         1
      ) and the Aarhus Convention (
         2
      )

            —

            The applicant submits that the renewal of the approval for the active substance glyphosate is an administrative act which may be reviewed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.

            —

            In addition, it is argued, in particular, that the renewal of the approval is a ‘measure of individual scope’ since a decision is taken vis-à-vis the applicant within the framework of the approval procedure.

            —

            It is also submitted that the approval of the active substance glyphosate should have been issued only in accordance with the appropriate restrictions and conditions for the preservation of biodiversity.

            —

            Finally, the applicant criticises errors in the procedure for the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate.

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
   (
         2
      )	United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.


201808030372050302018/C 294/363732018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180607272711Case C-373/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel (Portugal) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN2710120180607EN0036271271Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel (Portugal) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-373/18)2018/C 294/36Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas

      Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Question referred

   Is paragraph 26.1 of the General Schedule of Stamp Duties, in the version resulting from Article 3 of Decree-Law No 322-B/2001 of 14 December 2001, pursuant to which stamp duty is to be levied on the incorporation of a capital company (in particular, a public limited company) whose share capital is paid entirely in cash, contrary to Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (
         1
      ) of 17 July 1969, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC (
         2
      ) of 10 June 1985?
   (
         1
      )	Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25).
   (
         2
      )	OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.


201808030352049952018/C 294/534432018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180704394021Case C-443/18: Action brought on 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN3910120180704EN0053391402Action brought on 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-443/18)2018/C 294/53Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            (1)

            find that the Italian Republic

                     —

                     by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the immediate removal of at least all the plants which have been found to be infected by Xylella fastidiosa if situated in the infected zone within a distance of 20 km of the border of that infected zone with the rest of the territory of the Union, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 7(2)(c) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789; (
                           1
                        )

                     —

                     by failing to ensure, in the containment area, the monitoring of the presence of Xylella fastidiosa by annual surveys at appropriate times of the year, has failed to meets its obligations under Article 7(7) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789;

                     —

                     by also continuously failing to intervene immediately to prevent the spread of Xylella fastidiosa, by successive infringement of the specific obligations referred to in Decision (EU) 2015/789 concerning the respective affected areas, which allowed the further spread of the disease, has failed to meet its obligations under Article 6(2), (7) and (9) and Article 7(2)(c) and (7) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789, its obligations under Article 16(1) of Directive 200/29/EC (
                           2
                        ) and the obligation of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union;

            (2)

            order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The evidence in the Commission’s possession, which is based on the information provided by the Italian Republic, the audits carried out by the Commission and the scientific opinions of EFSA and of other bodies, reveal late inspections, considerable delays and deficiencies in the removal of the plants found to be infected, not only up to the date the reasoned opinion was delivered but even up to the date on which the present action was brought. The Commission therefore considers that Italy’s persistent and general non-compliance with the obligation to prevent the spread of the disease under the articles mentioned above has been established.
   (
         1
      )	Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (notified under document C(2015) 3415) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36)
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1)


201808030212050082018/C 294/373772018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531272822Case C-377/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN2720120180531EN0037272282Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH
   (Case C-377/18)2018/C 294/37Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court

   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

      Accused persons

   AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

      Question referred

   Is national case-law which requires that, in the text of an agreement (entered into in the context of criminal proceedings), not only the accused person who has admitted that he is guilty of a criminal offence and has entered into that agreement, but also other accused persons, the joint perpetrators of the offence, who have not entered into that agreement, who have not admitted that they are guilty and against whom the case continues in accordance with ordinary criminal procedure, but who have agreed to the first accused person entering into that agreement, be identified as perpetrators of the criminal offence in question, compatible with the first sentence of Article 4(1), read in conjunction with the first sentence of recital 16 and with recital 17, of Directive 2016/343? (
         1
      )
   (
         1
      )	Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).


201808030312049832018/C 294/253502018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180530181922Case C-350/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2018 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Larissa Nijs
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1820120180530EN0025182192Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2018 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Larissa Nijs
   (Case C-350/18)2018/C 294/25Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS)

      Defendant: Larissa Nijs

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 9(4) of [Regulation No 1371/2007] (
                  1
               ) of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and Article 3 of Directive 93/13, (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as meaning that a contractual legal relationship is always created between the transport company and the passenger, even when the latter makes use of the services provided by the transport company without purchasing a ticket?

            2.

            If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, does the protection offered by the doctrine of unfair terms also extend to a passenger who makes use of public transport without having acquired a ticket and who, by that action, under the general terms and conditions of the transport company, which are considered to be generally binding on the basis of their regulatory nature or, alternatively, by virtue of their publication in an official State publication, is obliged to pay a surcharge in addition to the fare?

            3.

            Does Article 6 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which provides that ‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms’, preclude a court in all cases from moderating the term deemed to be unfair or from applying ordinary law instead?

            4.

            If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, what then are the circumstances in which a national court may proceed to moderate the term found to be unfair or to replace it by the ordinary law?

            5.

            If the aforementioned questions cannot be answered in abstracto, the question then arises as to whether, if the national railway company, having apprehended a fare-dodger, imposes a civil penalty in the form of a surcharge, whether or not in addition to the fare, and the court were to find that the surcharge imposed is unfair within the meaning of Article 2(a), read in conjunction with Article 3, of Directive 93/13, Article 6 of Directive 93/13 precludes the court from declaring the term void and applying ordinary liability law to compensate the national railway company for the damage suffered.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


201808030802050942018/C 294/723992018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180627585811Case T-399/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5810120180627EN0072581581Action brought on 27 June 2018 — TrekStor v EUIPO (Theatre)
   (Case T-399/18)2018/C 294/72Language in which the application was lodged: German
      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hongkong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Theatre — Application No 16 374 886

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2018 in Case R 2238/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201808030792050882018/C 294/543792010TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180703414111Joined Cases T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French bathroom fittings and fixtures market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation of certain entities in a cartel — Reassessment of the evidence)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN4110120180703EN0054411411Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — French bathroom fittings and fixtures market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation of certain entities in a cartel — Reassessment of the evidence)’2018/C 294/54Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants in Case T-379/10 RENV: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG (Ratingen, Germany) and five other applicants whose names are set out in the annex. Applicant in Case T-381/10 RENV: Sanitec Europe Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: P. Lindfelt and K. Struckmann, lawyers, and J. Killick, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for, first, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, secondly, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Cases C-613/13 P, T-379/10 RENV and T-381/10 RENV.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


201808030702050842018/C 294/734042018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180702595911Case T-404/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5910120180702EN0073591591Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Zhadanov v EUIPO (PDF Expert)
   (Case T-404/18)2018/C 294/73Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Igor Zhadanov (Odessa, Ukraine) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PDF Expert — Application for registration No 16 257 735

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 1813/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            register European Union trade mark application No 16 257 735 for ‘Computer application software for personal computers, mobile phones and portable electronic devices, namely, software for viewing, editing and managing pdf documents’;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            The Board of Appeal erred in not recognizing the special nature of the applied for goods;

            —

            The Board of Appeal erred in the evaluation of the submitted evidence when it concluded that the applied for mark does not enjoy acquired distinctiveness through use.


201808030732050742018/C 294/552222014TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180704424211Case T-222/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Deluxe Entertainment Services Group v EUIPO (deluxe) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark deluxe — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN4210120180704EN0055421421Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Deluxe Entertainment Services Group v EUIPO (deluxe)
   (Case T-222/14 RENV) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark deluxe — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 294/55Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: L. Gellman, Solicitor, and M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign deluxe as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


201808030072050402018/C 294/383802018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180611282811Case C-380/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other party: E.P.
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN2810120180611EN0038281281Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, other party: E.P.
   (Case C-380/18)2018/C 294/38Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Other party: E.P.

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (
                  1
               ) … be interpreted as meaning that, when establishing that a legal stay of no more than 90 days within a period of 180 days has been terminated because a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy, reasons must be given as to why the personal conduct of the foreign national concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society?

            2.

            If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements which, pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … apply to the reasons as to why the foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy?
            Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public order on the sole ground that it has been established that the foreign national concerned is suspected of having committed a criminal offence?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).