title: Case C-506/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Directive 84/5/EEC — Directive 90/232/EEC — Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle — National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State
   (Case C-506/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Directive 84/5/EEC - Directive 90/232/EEC - Driver responsible for the accident which caused the death of his spouse, a passenger in the vehicle - National legislation excluding compensation for material damage suffered by the driver responsible for the accident))
   (2017/C 374/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

      Defendant: Portuguese State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of 11 May 2005, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which allow exclusion of the right of a driver of a motor vehicle responsible, by his own fault, for a traffic accident as a result of which his spouse, a passenger in that vehicle, has died, to receive compensation for the material harm which he has suffered as a result of that death.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case T-630/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/48

         Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Top Cable v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-630/17)
   (2017/C 374/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-530/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2017 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15, M.Y. Azarov v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/21

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2017 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15, M.Y. Azarov v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-530/17 P)
   (2017/C 374/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 in Case T-215/15;

               2.

               give final judgment itself in the case and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (1) of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (2) of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

               3.

               in the alternative to the second head of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in line with the legal assessment contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice, and reserve the decision on costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

               (1)

               The General Court infringed Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in finding that the Council had not erred in law in its reasons for the restrictive measures. The Council did not set out the reasons in a sufficiently specific and concrete manner.

               (2)

               The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the interference with property rights and the freedom to run a business. In particular, it erred in law in finding that the measures were appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, the General Court committed procedural errors and infringed procedural rights.

               (3)

               The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not misused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out a specific check on the appellant. Second, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the lack of specific evidence was irrelevant.

               (4)

               The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not infringed the right to good administration. First, the findings of the General Court on the Council’s obligation to maintain impartiality are vitiated by errors of law. Second, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the obligation to make a careful determination of the facts. In this context, an infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights is also evident.
               The General Court erred in finding that the Council had not committed a ‘manifest error of assessment’. First, the General Court failed to meet its obligation to carry out a review in relation to the contested legal acts in that it did not review the procedure which had led to the adoption of the contested legal acts. The General Court erred in law in finding that the Council could rely solely on a letter from the Ukraine. The General Court thereby disregarded the obligation to make additional enquiries. Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard for the scope of the most recent case-law of the Court of Justice on restrictive measures. In addition, the General Court reasoned to a large extent in a purely political manner and demonstrates a failure to appreciate the importance of fundamental rights in a third country.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1.


title: Case T-84/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark widiba — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)
   (Case T-84/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark widiba - Earlier national word mark DiBa - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Duty of care))
   (2017/C 374/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy) and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Gerling and M. Wolpert-Witzel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between ING-DIBa and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-248/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Concentrations between undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 3(1)(b) and (4) — Scope — Definition of ‘concentration’ — Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint — Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt
   (Case C-248/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Concentrations between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 3(1)(b) and (4) - Scope - Definition of ‘concentration’ - Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint - Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity))
   (2017/C 374/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

      Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is deemed to arise upon a change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint, only if the joint venture created by such a transaction performs on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-87/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission (Financial assistance — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — ASSET Convention — Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit — Action for annulment — Legitimate expectations — Arbitration clause — Deadline for providing the audit report — Adversarial principle — Eligibility of costs — Contractual liability)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Eurofast v Commission
   (Case T-87/16) (1)

   ((Financial assistance - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - ASSET Convention - Decision to recover by offsetting certain sums paid following a financial audit - Action for annulment - Legitimate expectations - Arbitration clause - Deadline for providing the audit report - Adversarial principle - Eligibility of costs - Contractual liability))
   (2017/C 374/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà, S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, Agents)

      Re:

   On the one hand, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision of 17 December 2015 to proceed to recovery by offsetting, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit, certain sums advanced to the applicant under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project, concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, and, on the other hand, application based on Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that that debt does not exist, that the expenditure incurred under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the ASSET project is eligible and to order the Commission to confirm that the funding granted is lawful, to order the Commission to pay a sum under Grant Agreement No 607049 in respect of the Eksistenz project and to pay contractual compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Eurofast SARL to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 78 380,28, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contribution from which it benefitted under Grant Agreement No 211625 in respect of the project ‘Aeronautic Study on Seamless Transport’, plus late-payment interest at a rate of 3,55 % from 13 January 2015, after deduction of the offset amount, namely EUR 69 923,68 as at 17 December 2015.

               3.

               Orders Eurofast to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those related to the interlocutory procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case T-563/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/39

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB
   (Case T-563/17)
   (2017/C 374/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gayalex Proyectos, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Betancor Álamo and F. Cabrera Molina, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-663/15: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/23

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol
   (Case C-663/15) (1)

   (2017/C 374/33)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-573/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Inversiones Flandes and Others v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/40

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Inversiones Flandes and Others v SRB
   (Case T-573/17)
   (2017/C 374/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Inversiones Flandes SL (Madrid, Spain), New Winds Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), Sarey Investments, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Jiménez Velasco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board in the light of the recitals, articles and principles set out and order the adoption of a new decision which reflects, with full transparency and certainty, the actual financial situation, in commercial terms, of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, on that basis, order that appropriate measures be taken;

               —

               Expressly order SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-187/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/12

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja
   (Case C-187/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice))
   (2017/C 374/17)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski Sud u Vukovaru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak

      Defendant: EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja

      Operative part

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru (Municipal Court of Vukovar, Croatia), by decision of 5 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-214/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zymara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zymara)
   (Case T-214/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zymara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2015 (Case R 550/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-489/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl
   (Case C-489/17)
   (2017/C 374/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   MAD Srl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

               2.

               Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

               3.

               Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

               4.

               Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

      (1)  2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).


title: Case T-614/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/45

         Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA
   (Case T-614/17)
   (2017/C 374/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

         consequently:

               —

               annul the decision of 14 November 2016 dismissing the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of the Authority entitled to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 2 June 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 February 2017;

               —

               award the applicant the amount of EUR 15 000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84 CEAA, procedural irregularities committed by the defendant Agency, infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care and infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant and, in particular, of his right to be heard.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the absence of normal probationary conditions and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the absence of clearly defined objectives, infringement of Article 80 CEAA and failure to observe the principle of correspondence between Function Group IV and the tasks assigned to the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the probationary period report was based on manifestly erroneous grounds.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration and a misuse of power.


title: Case T-644/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/49

         Action brought on 20 September 2017 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)
   (Case T-644/17)
   (2017/C 374/73)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DNV GL AS (Høvik, Norway) (represented by: J. Albers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sustainablel’ — Application for registration No 15 372 832

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               register the European Union trade mark application No 15 372 832 ‘Sustainablel’ for all applied for goods and services;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-601/17: Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/43

         Action brought on 31 August 2017 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO — Simba Toys (Shape of a cube)
   (Case T-601/17)
   (2017/C 374/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rubik’s Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Szamosi and M. Borbás, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a cube) — EU trade mark No 162 784

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2017 in Case R 452/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-448/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 July 2017 — EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o. v Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 July 2017 — EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o. v Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová
   (Case C-448/17)
   (2017/C 382/35)
   Language of the case: Slovakian

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EOS KSI Slovensko, s.r.o.

      Defendants: Ján Danko, Margita Jalčová

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the judgment in Case C-470/12 Pohotovosť, and the considerations set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union at paragraph 46 of the grounds too, is a legal provision incompatible with the principle of equivalence under EU law when — in the context of the equivalence of the interests protected by law and the protection of consumer rights against unfair contractual terms — it does not permit, without the defendant consumer’s consent, a legal person whose activity involves the collective protection of consumers against unfair contractual terms and is designed to achieve the objective set out in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (3) of the Civil Code, to participate as another party (intervener) in legal proceedings from the outset and to make effective use, for the consumer’s benefit, of the means of action and defence in court proceedings, in order to secure, in the context of such proceedings, protection from the systematic use of unfair contractual terms; whereas, in other circumstances, another party (intervener), intervening in court proceedings in support of the defendant and having an interest in the definition of the substantive (commercial) law that is the object of the proceedings, does not in fact, unlike a consumer protection association, require the consent of the consumer, on whose behalf it is intervening, in order to take part in the proceedings from the outset and effectively exercise the means of defence and action for the defendant’s benefit?

               2.

               In the light also of the findings of the Court of Justice in its judgments in Case C-26/13 and Case C-96/14, must the expression ‘in plain intelligible language’ appearing in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted to the effect that a contractual term may be regarded as not being in plain and intelligible language — with the legal consequence that it is [automatically] subject to judicial review of unfairness — even when the legal institute [body of legal rules governing a specific area of civil law (instrument) which it governs is in itself complicated, it is hard for the average consumer to foresee its legal consequences and in order to understand it professional legal advice is generally necessary, the costs of which are disproportionate to the value of the service which the consumer receives under the agreement?

               3.

               When a court takes a decision on the rights deriving from an agreement concluded with a consumer, asserted against a consumer as defendant, on the sole basis of the applicant’s claims, by way of an order for payment [issued] in summary proceedings, and the provision in Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure precluding the issue of an order for payment if a contract concluded with a consumer contains unfair contractual terms is in no way applied in the proceedings, is it not incompatible with EU law for legislation of a Member State, given the brief period allowed for the lodging of an appeal and the possibility that the consumer may be impossible to find or be inactive, not to make it possible for a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code, effectively to make use, without the consumer’s consent (unless the consumer specifically dissents), of the only opportunity of protecting the consumer, in the form of opposition to the order for payment, in circumstances in which the court fails to fulfil its obligation under Article 172(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

               4.

               May it be considered relevant, for the purpose of the answers to the second and third questions, that the [national] legal order does not accord the consumer the right to mandatory legal assistance and that, failing legal representation, his lack of knowledge in that area gives rise to a significant risk that he will fail to perceive the unfairness of the contractual terms and will not even act to enable the intervention on his behalf, in court proceedings, of a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code?

               5.

               Is it not incompatible with EU law, and the requirement that all the circumstances of the case be assessed, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, for legislation, such as that on summary proceedings for the issue of an order for payment (Article 172(1) et seq. of the Slovak Code of Civil Procedure), to permit: (1) the seller or supplier to be given the right to a pecuniary benefit with the effects of a judgment, (2) in the context of summary proceedings, (3) before an administrative officer of the court, (4) solely on the basis of the trader’s claims, and (5) without evidence being taken and in circumstances in which (6) the consumer is not represented by a legal professional, (7) and his defence may not be effectively mounted, without his consent, by a consumer protection association, qualified and authorised to pursue the objective under Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, as transposed by Article 53a(1) and (2) of the Civil Code?

      (1)  OJ L 1993, L 95 p. 25.


title: Case C-186/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk born entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract — Time at which the imbalance must be assessed — Scope of the concept of terms drafted in ‘plain intelligible language’ — Level of information to be procured by the bank)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/21

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others v Banca Românească SA
   (Case C-186/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 3(1) and Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency - Exchange rate risk born entirely by the consumer - Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract - Time at which the imbalance must be assessed - Scope of the concept of terms drafted in ‘plain intelligible language’ - Level of information to be procured by the bank))
   (2017/C 382/24)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ruxandra Paula Andriciuc and Others

      Defendant: Banca Românească SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’ within the meaning of that provision, covers a contractual term, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, incorporated into a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency which was not individually negotiated and according to which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted, as that terms lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract. Therefore, that clause cannot be regarded as being unfair, provided that it is drafted in plain intelligible language.

               2.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language requires that, in the case of loan agreements, financial institutions must provide borrowers with sufficient information to enable them to take prudent and well-informed decisions. In that connection, that requirement means that a term under which the loan must be repaid in the same foreign currency as that in which it was contracted must be understood by the consumer both at the formal and grammatical level, and also in terms of its actual effects, so that the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, would be aware both of the possibility of a rise or fall in the value of the foreign currency in which the loan was taken out, and would also be able to assess the potentially significant economic consequences of such a term with regard to his financial obligations. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary checks in that regard.

               3.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of the unfairness of a contractual term must be made by reference to the time of conclusion of the contract at issue, taking account all of the circumstances which could have been known to the seller or supplier at that time, and which were such as to affect the future performance of that contract. It is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, and taking account, in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier, in the present case the bank, with regard to the possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in taking out a loan in a foreign currency, of the existence of a possible imbalance within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-174/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — H. v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2010/18/EU — Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave — Clause 5(1) and (2) — Return from parental leave — Right to return to the same job or an equivalent or similar job — Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired to be maintained as they stand — Civil servant of a Land promoted to civil servant on probation in a managerial post — Rules of that Land providing for the ending of the probationary period by operation of law and with no possibility of extension on expiry of a two-year period, even in the case of absence as a result of parental leave — Incompatibility — Consequences)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — H. v Land Berlin
   (Case C-174/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - Clause 5(1) and (2) - Return from parental leave - Right to return to the same job or an equivalent or similar job - Rights acquired or in the process of being acquired to be maintained as they stand - Civil servant of a Land promoted to civil servant on probation in a managerial post - Rules of that Land providing for the ending of the probationary period by operation of law and with no possibility of extension on expiry of a two-year period, even in the case of absence as a result of parental leave - Incompatibility - Consequences))
   (2017/C 374/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 5(1) and (2) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which subject definitive promotion to a managerial post in the civil service to the condition that the candidate selected successfully carries out a prior two-year probationary period in that post, and by virtue of which, in a situation where such a candidate was on parental leave for most of that period and still is, that probationary period ends by operation of law after two years with no possibility of extending it and the person concerned is consequently, on return from parental leave, reinstated in the post, at a lower level both in status and in terms of remuneration, occupied before that probationary period. The infringements of that clause cannot be justified by the objective pursued by the probationary period, which is to enable the assessment of suitability for the managerial post to be assigned permanently.

               2.

               It is for the referring court, if necessary by disapplying the rules of national law at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain, as required by Clause 5(1) of the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave set out in the Annex to Directive 2010/18, whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, it was not objectively possible for the Land concerned, in its capacity as an employer, to enable the person concerned to return to her post at the end of her parental leave and, if so, to ensure that she is assigned to an equivalent or similar post consistent with her employment contract or relationship, without that assignment of a post being made conditional upon holding a new selection procedure beforehand. It is also for that court to ensure that the person concerned may, at the end of parental leave, continue, in the post thus returned to or newly assigned, a probationary period under conditions that are in compliance with the requirements of Clause 5(2) of the revised Framework Agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-486/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Olympus Italia Srl v Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)
   (Case C-486/17)
   (2017/C 374/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olympus Italia Srl

      Defendant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico — Centro di Riferimento Oncologico della Basilicata di Rionero in Vulture (I.R.C.C.S. CROB)

      Question referred

   Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Article 95(10) and Article 83(9) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in the financial tender in a procedure for the award of public contracts inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned without the possibility of supplementing or amending its tendering documentation, even in the case where the obligation to list those costs separately was not set out on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question actually took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-605/17: Action brought on 1 September 2017 — CX v Commission

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/44

         Action brought on 1 September 2017 — CX v Commission
   (Case T-605/17)
   (2017/C 374/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare his action admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul the ‘debit note’, regarded by the Commission as a decision adversely affecting the applicant (‘the second contested decision’), dated 22 December 2016 (Annex A.1), under the reference Ares(2016)7145655, in so far as it requires the applicant to recover the ‘salaries paid in 2015 and 2016’;

                           —

                           annul the ‘preliminary information letter’ (‘the first contested decision’), of 28 October 2016 (Annex A.2), under the reference Ares(2016)6178919, which ostensibly constitutes its legal basis;

                           —

                           annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of 23 May 2017 (Annex A.5), under the reference Ares(2017)2620957, notified on the same day (Annex A.6), by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint, which he had lodged on 27 January 2017, under the reference R/59/17 (Annex A.4), against the contested decisions;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a formal defect and a procedural defect, and that the appointing authority adopted the contested decisions on an erroneous legal basis, which justifies their annulment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, upon which the appointing authority based itself, is manifestly inapplicable in the present case. In the applicant’s view, the recovery of undue payments is subject to two cumulative conditions: first, the payment which the administration seeks to recover must have been irregular, and second, the member of staff must have been aware of that irregularity or the irregularity must have been so obvious that the member of staff could not have failed to be aware of it, which is clearly not the case here.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the formal and procedural rules by reason of the adoption of a decision devoid of any legal basis, in so far as it is maintained in that decision a posteriori that the measure justifying it is not, or is no longer, a measure adversely affecting the applicant.


title: Case T-611/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/45

         Action brought on 7 September 2017 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)
   (Case T-611/17)
   (2017/C 374/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Evry, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Shape of a shoe sole) — EU trade mark No 7 497 373

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 952/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 78 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 63 and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 52(1) and 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 52(2) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-628/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Scope — Tax legislation of a Member State — Corporation tax — Tax credit — Pension funds — Refusal to grant the tax credit to shareholders not subject to tax on investment income for dividends arising from foreign income — Interpretation of the judgment of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (C-446/04, EU:C:2006:774) — Tax credit unlawfully withheld — Remedies)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-628/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Scope - Tax legislation of a Member State - Corporation tax - Tax credit - Pension funds - Refusal to grant the tax credit to shareholders not subject to tax on investment income for dividends arising from foreign income - Interpretation of the judgment of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (C-446/04, EU:C:2006:774) - Tax credit unlawfully withheld - Remedies))
   (2017/C 382/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, rights on a shareholder receiving dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’.

               2.

               EU law requires that the domestic law of a Member State provide remedies to shareholders who, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, have received dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ but have not, however, obtained a tax credit in respect of those dividends, in order to enable those shareholders to enforce the rights that Article 63 TFEU confers on them. In that regard, the national court with jurisdiction must ensure that shareholders not subject to income tax in respect of dividends who have received dividends that have their origin in foreign-sourced dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, such as the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, have a remedy which, first, ensures payment of such a tax credit — of which the beneficiaries have been unduly deprived — under rules which are not less favourable than those relating to an action seeking payment of a tax credit, or of a comparable tax advantage, in a situation where the tax authorities have unduly deprived the beneficiaries of that tax credit or of that tax advantage on a distribution of dividends which have their origin in the dividends received from a UK-resident company and, second, allows the protection of the rights conferred on such shareholders by Article 63 TFEU to be guaranteed in an effective manner.

               3.

               Neither the fact that the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme are not subject to income tax in respect of the dividends they receive, the fact that the infringement of EU law at issue is not, in the referring court’s view, sufficiently serious so as to give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Member State concerned in favour of the company distributing dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’, under the principles established in the judgment of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame (C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79) nor the fact that a UK-resident company has distributed an increased amount of dividends treated as ‘foreign income dividends’ in order to make up for the fact that the recipient shareholder was not entitled to a tax credit are such as to alter the answers given to the other questions asked by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-638/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/56

         Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-638/17)
   (2017/C 382/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Helibética, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-574/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/35

         Appeal brought on 28 September 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission
   (Case C-574/17 P)
   (2017/C 382/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Combaro SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 in Case T-752/14, Combaro SA v European Commission;

               —

               dismiss Combaro SA’s action as unfounded;

               —

               order Combaro SA to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds:

               1.

               Failure of the General Court to characterise the facts correctly in law in regard to the existence of a special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code. (1)

               The Commission submits that the General Court alleged erroneous action on its part in so far as, on the one hand, it attributed powers to the Commission which the latter does not at all have or, on the other hand, required it to exercise powers which could no longer contribute to a clarification of the facts. There was, however, no erroneous action on the part of the Commission, with the result that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.

               2.

               Distortion by the General Court of the evidence as to there being a special situation under Article 239 of the Customs Code.
               The General Court held, contrary to the documents in the case file, that the signatures on the relevant movement certificates were those of Mr R and that Latvia had not provided the original copies of the stamps used by the Jelgava and Bauska customs offices. Had the General Court assessed the evidence correctly, it would necessarily have concluded that the Commission had carried out an adequate assessment of the facts of the case as regards the imports of linen fabric and that it was fully entitled to take the view that there was no special situation as contemplated in Article 239 of the Customs Code.

               3.

               Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code as to the existence of a special situation.
               The General Court failed to balance the Commission’s alleged erroneous action against the interests of the importer, who had used false certificates for the movement of goods. In the absence of a balancing of interests, the General Court incorrectly applied Article 239 of the Customs Code, since in the present case the interests of the European Union in ensuring that the customs provisions are complied with must outweigh the interests of the importer.

               4.

               Incorrect interpretation by the General Court of Article 239 of the Customs Code with regard to the obvious negligence on the part of Combaro SA.
               The General Court erred in requiring the Commission to prove an intentional infringement of the rules of origin on the part of the importer. Had the rules governing the application of the burden of proof been correctly applied, the General Court would necessarily have recognised that doubts which must justifiably have arisen would have sufficed to place an obligation on an importer to seek information or clarification relevant to the customs clearing procedures in question, at least from his exporters.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-695/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — BMB v EUIPO — Ferrero (Container for sweets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a container for sweets — Earlier international three-dimensional mark — Shape of a standard container which can be filled with sweets — Likelihood of confusion — Application of national law — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 62 and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — BMB v EUIPO — Ferrero (Container for sweets)
   (Case T-695/15) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a container for sweets - Earlier international three-dimensional mark - Shape of a standard container which can be filled with sweets - Likelihood of confusion - Application of national law - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 62 and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 382/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BMB sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland) (represented by: K. Czubkowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 (Case R 1150/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferrero and BMB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BMB sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-636/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 – PlasticsEurope v ECHA

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/54

         Action brought on 15 September 2017 – PlasticsEurope v ECHA
   (Case T-636/17)
   (2017/C 382/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier, and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded,

               —

               annul the decision, published on 7 July 2017, to update the existing entry of Bisphenol A in the Candidate List as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1, the ‘REACH Regulation’),

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings, and

               —

               take such other or further measure as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty by applying inconsistent and unforeseeable criteria to assess the alleged endocrine disrupting (‘ED’) properties for human health of BPA.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed its duty of care.

                           —

                           The defendant failed to establish that BPA is an endocrine disrupting substance for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) of Article 57 of the REACH Regulation, considering that (i) the defendant has only sought to establish that BPA has alleged ‘endocrine disrupting properties’, (ii) the identification of BPA does not meet the criteria laid out in Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation and the general principles of EU law, and (iii) the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the derivation of a safe level as a relevant factor for the assessment of BPA towards the criteria of Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation; and

                           —

                           The defendant failed to take into account all relevant information, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to take into consideration expected studies which were acknowledged as relevant for the assessment of BPA’s alleged ED properties, and in particular the CLARITY-BPA study, and by not considering the derivation of a safe level as a factor relevant for the establishment of the equivalent level of concern.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Articles 59 and 57(f) of the REACH Regulation by identifying BPA as a Substance of Very High Concern on the basis of the criteria referred to in Article 57(f), since Article 57(f) only covers substances which have not yet been identified under Article 57(a) to (e).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation since intermediates are exempt from the entire Title VII, and are thus outside the scope of Articles 57 and 59 and outside the scope of authorisation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion of BPA in the Candidate List when it is a non-intermediate exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the Agency could have had recourse.


title: Case C-56/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) — EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE — Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark — Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin ‘Porto’ and ‘Port’ under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law — Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin — Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘evocation’ of a protected designation of origin)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd
   (Case C-56/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) - EU word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark - Protection conferred on the earlier designations of origin ‘Porto’ and ‘Port’ under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and under national law - Exhaustive nature of the protection conferred on those designations of origin - Article 118m of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Concepts of ‘use’ and ‘evocation’ of a protected designation of origin))
   (2017/C 382/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado and O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by B. Eggers, I. Galindo Martín, J. Samnadda and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, advogado), Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, avocate)

      Intervener in support of Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and A. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015, Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE) (T-659/14, EU:T:2015:863);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP in Case T-659/14 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4);

               3.

               Orders Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto IP to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd in both sets of judicial proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-206/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)
   (Case T-206/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 382/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 407/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRES TOROS 3 as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bodegas Verdúguez, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-674/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Le Port de Bruxelles et Région Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/60

         Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Le Port de Bruxelles et Région Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
   (Case T-674/17)
   (2017/C 382/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Le Port de Bruxelles (Brussels, Belgium), Région Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final);

               —

               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law which is substantially identical or similar to that raised in Case T-673/17, Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission.


title: Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 19(2)(a) — Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Airline sector — Airline crew — Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 — Concept of ‘home base’)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)
   (Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 19(2)(a) - Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Airline sector - Airline crew - Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 - Concept of ‘home base’))
   (2017/C 382/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar (C-169/16)

      Defendants: Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, assigned to or employed by an airline, and in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-320/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 4(1) and (3) — Secondary or equivalent treatment)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-320/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 4(1) and (3) - Secondary or equivalent treatment))
   (2017/C 382/04)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Brodie and J. Kraehling, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having ensured secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water from the agglomerations of Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli, Vagia and Galatista, whose population equivalent is between 2 000 and 10 000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-503/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC — Theft of a vehicle — Motor vehicle accident — Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian — Civil liability — Compensation — Compulsory insurance cover — Exclusion clauses — National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers — Compatibility with those directives — Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/25

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora — Portugal) — Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes v Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA
   (Case C-503/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2009/103/EC - Theft of a vehicle - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries and property damage sustained by the insured owner of the vehicle, as a pedestrian - Civil liability - Compensation - Compulsory insurance cover - Exclusion clauses - National legislation excluding the insured owner of the vehicle from compensation from the insurers - Compatibility with those directives - Concept of ‘third parties who have been victims’))
   (2017/C 382/29)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Évora

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luís Isidro Delgado Mendes

      Defendant: Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1a of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle, as amended by Directive 2005/14, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excluded from coverage under compulsory insurance against civil liability with respect to the use of motor vehicles and, therefore, compensation by means of that insurance the personal injuries and property damage sustained by a pedestrian victim of a motor vehicle accident, on the sole ground that that pedestrian was the insurance policy-holder and the owner of the vehicle that caused those injuries and that damage.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case C-471/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-471/17)
   (2017/C 374/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Question referred

   Are fried noodles ‘dried’ pasta within the meaning of CN subheading 1902 3010? (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Decision (EU) 2015/1601 — Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic — Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States — Relocation of those nationals to other Member States — Relocation quotas — Article 78(3) TFEU — Legal basis — Conditions under which applicable — Concept of ‘legislative act’ — Article 289(3) TFEU — Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union — Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU — Essential procedural requirements — Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal — Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union — Article 293 TFEU — Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Slovak Republic (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Decision (EU) 2015/1601 - Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic - Emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into certain Member States - Relocation of those nationals to other Member States - Relocation quotas - Article 78(3) TFEU - Legal basis - Conditions under which applicable - Concept of ‘legislative act’ - Article 289(3) TFEU - Whether conclusions adopted by the European Council are binding on the Council of the European Union - Article 15(1) TEU and Article 68 TFEU - Essential procedural requirements - Amendment of the European Commission’s proposal - Requirements for a further consultation of the European Parliament and a unanimous vote within the Council of the European Union - Article 293 TFEU - Principles of legal certainty and of proportionality))
   (2017/C 374/05)
   Language of the case: Slovak and Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicants: Slovak Republic (represented by: the Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky) (C-643/15) and Hungary (C-647/15) (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Kamejsza, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, K. Pleśniak, N. Pethő and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J. Van Holm, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T Henze, R. Kanitz and J. Möller (C-647/15), acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F.-X. Bréchot and E. Armoet, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by L. D’Ascia, avvocato dello Stato), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: A. Germeaux, C. Schiltz and D. Holderer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, O. Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and K. Talabér-Ritz (C-647/15), J. Baquero Cruz and A. Tokár (C-643/15) and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Slovak Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-454/17 PP: Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/14

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-454/17 PP)
   (2017/C 374/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vincent Piessevaux (represented by: L. Ponteville, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16;

               —

               grant the appellant the form of order sought by it in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Staff Note 113/11 from the Appointing Authority of the Council, which introduces a derogation from the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Council Decision of 11 October 2011 adopting the general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials relating to the transfer of pension rights (‘the 2011 GIP’) — a derogation according to which the general implementing provisions adopted on 29 April 2004 (‘the 2004 GIP’) will continue to apply only in cases where the Appointing Authority has notified a proposal concerning a subsidy to the person concerned and where the latter has given his consent before the entry into force of the 2011 GIP. The reasoning of that rejection, set out in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations.
   The second ground of appeal alleges distortion of the first part of the third ground of annulment relied on by the appellant, breach of the principle of the authenticity of documents, failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The General Court erred in law:

               —

               in paragraphs 73, 74, 80 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, by distorting the first part of the third ground of annulment and by breaching the authenticity of the appellant’s pleadings, by wrongly stating that the appellant had invoked a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

               —

               in paragraphs 73 to 100 of the judgment under appeal, by failing to respond, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to the first part of the third ground of annulment, which is based on infringement of the principle equality of treatment and not on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

               —

               in paragraphs 82 to 100 of the judgment under appeal — in the event that it should nevertheless be held that paragraphs 82 to 100, or a part thereof or certain elements thereof, constitute a response to the first part of the third ground of annulment — by rejecting the plea of illegality of the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the 2011 GIP, relied on by the appellant and based on infringement of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-87/17 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions — Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/11

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 July 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v Court of Justice of European Union
   (Case C-87/17 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Alleged non-compliance with EU law of the Austrian legislation in respect of gambling contributions - Failure, by the national courts or tribunals, to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature))
   (2017/C 374/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.