title: Case T-25/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/47

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-25/18)
   (2018/C 104/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decision C(2017) 7604 final of 9 November 2017, partially refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the drafting of Delegated Regulations on scientific criteria for the assessment of endocrine disrupting substances;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission acted in breach of and wrongly applied Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

                           —

                           The Commission acted in breach of and wrongly applied Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by applying it to information on a finished decision-making process.

                           —

                           The Commission acted in breach of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 because it did not interpret or apply the ground for refusal in a sufficiently restrictive way and did not demonstrate that disclosure would seriously undermine the decision-making process.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by adopting the contested decision, acted in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2) and Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001.

                           —

                           The Commission has acted in breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 by not examining specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access and by not justifying for each specific document for which reason it should not be disclosed by not interpreting the ground for refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a sufficiently restrictive way; furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of the abovementioned provisions because the Commission did not weigh the specific interest of protection of the decision-making process against the general interests of the disclosure of environmental information and by not stating sufficient reasons for the refusal.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly did not take into account that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested information.

                           —

                           Because of the major change of policy during the decision-making process and the major change of the draft scientific criteria set during this process there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

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


title: Case C-20/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/21

         Action brought on 9 January 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-20/18)
   (2018/C 104/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that, by failing to adopt, by no later than 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72), or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, for failure to comply with the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/26/EU;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Member States were required, under Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, to adopt the national measures required to transpose the obligations under that directive by no later than 10 April 2016. As Luxembourg failed to notify any measures transposing that directive, the Commission decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.
   In its application, the Commission proposes that Luxembourg should be ordered to pay a penalty payment of EUR 12 920 per day. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement, as well as the deterrent effect in the light of that Member State’s ability to pay.


title: Case T-729/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet international v EMA
   (Case T-729/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
   (2018/C 104/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH (Schwabenheim, Germany) and Intervet international BV (Boxmeer, Netherlands) (represented initially by: P. Bogaert, lawyer, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors, J. Stratford QC, and C. Thomas, Barrister, and, subsequently, by P. Bogaert, B. Kelly, J. Stratford, and C. Thomas)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Spina, S. Marino, A. Rusanov and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/785809/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the veterinary medicinal product Bravecto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2006.


title: Case T-37/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/49

         Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper)
   (Case T-37/18)
   (2018/C 104/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Pruszczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG (Hamburg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Brave Paper’ — Application for registration No 13 774 211

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 391/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the trademark to be registered for all applied goods and services;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case T-105/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel — Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Philip Morris Brands v EUIPO — Explosal (Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel)
   (Case T-105/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Superior Quality Cigarettes FILTER CIGARETTES Raquel - Earlier international figurative mark Marlboro - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2018/C 104/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Explosal Ltd (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Philip Morris and Explosal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 January 2016 (Case R 2775/2014-1);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO and Explosal Ltd to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Philip Morris Brands Sàrl.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-40/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/50

         Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)
   (Case T-40/18)
   (2018/C 104/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOLIDPOWER’ — Application for registration No 1 310 671

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 in Case R 1182/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-208/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA (Research and technological development — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Horizon 2020 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant — Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
   (Case T-208/16) (1)

   ((Research and technological development - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Horizon 2020 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant - Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2018/C 104/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented initially by: E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and L. Moreau, and subsequently by E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of (i) ERCEA Decision Ares(2016) 1020667 of 26 February 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application for a review of the decision refusing to subsidise research proposal No 682937, entitled ‘PHercSchools2 — The Hellenistic Philosophical Schools in the Herculaneum Papyri’, (ii) ERCEA Decision Ares(2015) 5922529 of 17 December 2015, refusing to subsidise that research proposal, and (iii) any prior, subsequent or connected measure linked to those decisions, in particular the list of projects approved for the ‘ERC Consolidator Grant’ support programme made public by the ERCEA’s press release of 12 February 2016.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Graziano Ranocchia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-43/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Voitures)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/50

         Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Voitures)
   (Case T-43/18)
   (2018/C 104/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Design at issue: European Union design No 5467-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 in Case R 1204/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO and declare EU design No 5467-0001 invalid;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case C-314/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2006/126/EC — Driving licences — Definitions of categories C1, C and D1)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/5

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-314/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Driving licences - Definitions of categories C1, C and D1))
   (2018/C 104/05)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By failing to comply with the obligation to ensure that the definition of categories C1 and C covers only motor vehicles other than those in category D1 or D, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences;

               2.

               By restricting the definition of category D1 to motor vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (4)(h) of that directive;

               3.

               The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-45/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/51

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)
   (Case T-45/18)
   (2018/C 104/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Næstved, Denmark) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign ‘NOVENCO’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 187 938

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 in Case R 2354/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partly annul the contested decision, namely for the goods of class 7 as covered by IR 1187938;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the third party’s costs, including those incurred during the appeal and opposition proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-360/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request — Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him — Article 24 — Take back procedure — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Circumstances after the transfer)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan
   (Case C-360/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request - Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him - Article 24 - Take back procedure - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review - Circumstances after the transfer))
   (2018/C 104/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Defendant: Aziz Hasan

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the factual situation that is relevant for the review by a court or tribunal of a transfer decision is that obtaining at the time of the last hearing before the court or tribunal determining the matter or, where there is no hearing, at the time when that court or tribunal gives a decision on the matter;

               2.

               Article 24 of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national who, after having made an application for international protection in a first Member State (Member State ‘A’), was transferred to Member State ‘A’ as a result of the rejection of a fresh application lodged in a second Member State (Member State ‘B’) and has then returned, without a residence document, to Member State ‘B’, a take back procedure may be undertaken in respect of that third-country national and it is not possible to transfer that person anew to Member State ‘A’ without such a procedure being followed;

               3.

               Article 24(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national has returned, without a residence document, to the territory of a Member State that has previously transferred him to another Member State, a take back request must be submitted within the periods prescribed in that provision and those periods may not begin to run until the requesting Member State has become aware that the person concerned has returned to its territory;

               4.

               Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a take back request is not made within the periods laid down in Article 24(2) of that regulation, the Member State on whose territory the person concerned is staying without a residence document is responsible for examining the new application for international protection which that person must be permitted to lodge;

               5.

               Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an appeal procedure brought against a decision that rejected a first application for international protection made in a Member State is still pending is not to be regarded as equivalent to the lodging of a new application for international protection in that Member State, as referred to in that provision;

               6.

               Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in Article 24(2) of that regulation and the person concerned has not made use of the opportunity that he must be given to lodge a new application for international protection:

                           —

                           the Member State on whose territory that person is staying without a residence document can still make a take back request, and;

                           —

                           that provision does not allow the person to be transferred to another Member State without such a request being made.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Joined Cases T-125/13, T-152/13 and T-167/13: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Italy and Others v Commission (State aid — Groundhandling services — Capital injections provided by SEA in favour of Sea Handling — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Partial removal from the register — Withdrawal — No need to adjudicate in part — Removal from the register of undertakings)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/40

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2018 — Italy and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-125/13, T-152/13 and T-167/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Groundhandling services - Capital injections provided by SEA in favour of Sea Handling - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Partial removal from the register - Withdrawal - No need to adjudicate in part - Removal from the register of undertakings))
   (2018/C 104/52)
   Language of the cases: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant in Case T-125/13: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Applicant in Case T-152/13: Sea Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented initially by B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi dal Pozzo, M. Merola and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi dal Pozzo and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-167/13: Comune di Milano (Italy) (represented initially by S. Grassani and A. Franchi, and subsequently by S. Grassani, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicant in Case T-152/13: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, B. Nascimbene, F. Rossi dal Pozzo and M.C. Toniolo, lawyers) and Comune di Milano (Italy) (represented initially by S. Grassani and A. Franchi, and subsequently by S. Grassani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into Sea Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10) (ex CP 175/06)) (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-125/13, T-152/13 and T-167/13 are disjoined for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the decision closing the proceedings.

               2.

               Case T-125/13 is removed from the register of the General Court.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by Sea Handling SpA in Case T-152/13.

               4.

               In Case T-125/13, the Italian Republic and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

               5.

               In Case T-152/13, Sea Handling and the Commission shall bear their own costs, including those in relation to the interlocutory proceedings. Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) and the Comune di Milano (Italy) shall bear their own costs in relation to Case T-152/13.

               6.

               In Case T-167/13, the costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-56/18: Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/52

         Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)
   (Case T-56/18)
   (2018/C 104/67)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WEIN FÜR PROFIS’ — Application for registration No 15 326 549

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 501/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case T-57/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/53

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)
   (Case T-57/18)
   (2018/C 104/68)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WEIN FÜR PROFIS’ — Application for registration No 15 326 531

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 502/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case T-846/16: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — QF v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/42

         Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — QF v Commission
   (Case T-846/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs - Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 104/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: QF (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet and A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona.

               4.

               QF shall pay the costs.

               5.

               QF, the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-60/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment v EUIPO — Promotional Traders (GREEN HERMIT)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/53

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment v EUIPO — Promotional Traders (GREEN HERMIT)
   (Case T-60/18)
   (2018/C 104/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hangzhou Lezoo traveling equipment Co. Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: D. Burghardt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Promotional Traders Pty Ltd (Subiaco, Australia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GREEN HERMIT’ — EU trade mark No 11 835 964

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 857/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the case to the Fourth Board of Appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 94(1) Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-812/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament (Interim measures — Public procurement — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Withdrawal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate in part — Application for an injunction — No urgency)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/42

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament
   (Case T-812/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public procurement - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Withdrawal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate in part - Application for an injunction - No urgency))
   (2018/C 104/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Seco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) Vinçotte (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and R. Simar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, first, for a suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 1 December 2017 to reject the applicants’ tender in the tender procedure 06D 20/2017/M005 entitled ‘Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels’ and to award the contract to another tenderer, and secondly, for an injunction against the Parliament.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for a suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 1 December 2017 to reject the tender of Seco Belgium and Vinçotte in the tender procedure 06D 20/2017/M005 entitled ‘Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels’ and to award the contract to another tenderer.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The order of 21 December 2017, Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament (T-812/17 R), is set aside.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-367/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Dawid Piotrowski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Surrender procedures between Member States — Grounds for mandatory non-execution — Article 3(3) — Minors — Requirement to verify the minimum age at which a minor may be regarded as criminally responsible or assessment, in each individual case, of the additional conditions laid down by the law of the executing Member State in order specifically to prosecute or convict a minor)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Dawid Piotrowski
   (Case C-367/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Surrender procedures between Member States - Grounds for mandatory non-execution - Article 3(3) - Minors - Requirement to verify the minimum age at which a minor may be regarded as criminally responsible or assessment, in each individual case, of the additional conditions laid down by the law of the executing Member State in order specifically to prosecute or convict a minor))
   (2018/C 104/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Dawid Piotrowski

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is to be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority of the executing Member State must refuse to surrender only those minors who are the subject of a European arrest warrant and who, under the law of the executing Member State, have not yet reached the age at which they are regarded as criminally responsible for the acts on which the warrant issued against them is based.

               2.

               Article 3(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to decide whether a minor who is the subject of a European arrest warrant is to be surrendered, the judicial authority of the executing Member State must simply verify whether the person concerned has reached the minimum age required to be regarded as criminally responsible in the executing Member State for the acts on which such a warrant is based, without having to consider any additional conditions, relating to an assessment based on the circumstances of the individual, to which the prosecution and conviction of a minor for such acts are specifically subject under the law of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-740/16: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/54

         Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
   (Case T-740/16) (1)

   (2018/C 104/70)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case C-473/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Hungary) — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7 — Respect for private and family life — Directive 2011/95/EU — Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation — Article 4 — Assessment of facts and circumstances — Recourse to an expert’s report — Psychological tests)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Hungary) — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-473/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 - Respect for private and family life - Directive 2011/95/EU - Standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation - Article 4 - Assessment of facts and circumstances - Recourse to an expert’s report - Psychological tests))
   (2018/C 104/08)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the authority responsible for examining applications for international protection, or, where an action has been brought against a decision of that authority, the courts or tribunals seised, from ordering that an expert’s report be obtained in the context of the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to the declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for such a report are consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that that authority and those courts or tribunals do not base their decision solely on the conclusions of the expert’s report and that they are not bound by those conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his sexual orientation.

               2.

               Article 4 of Directive 2011/95, read in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding the preparation and use, in order to assess the veracity of a claim made by an applicant for international protection concerning his sexual orientation, of a psychologist’s expert report, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is, on the basis of projective personality tests, to provide an indication of the sexual orientation of that applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-850/16: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2018 — QE v Eurojust

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/54

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2018 — QE v Eurojust
   (Case T-850/16) (1)

   (2018/C 104/71)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-498/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof) — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 15 and 16 — Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts — Definition of ‘consumer’ — Assignment between consumers of claims against the same trader or professional)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof) — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited
   (Case C-498/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 15 and 16 - Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Assignment between consumers of claims against the same trader or professional))
   (2018/C 104/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maximilian Schrems

      Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15 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 the activities of publishing books, lecturing, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement do not entail the loss of a private Facebook account user’s status as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that article.

               2.

               Article 16(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the proceedings brought by a consumer for the purpose of asserting, in the courts of the place where he is domiciled, not only his own claims, but also claims assigned by other consumers domiciled in the same Member State, in other Member States or in non-member countries.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-311/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/55

         Order of the General Court of 31 January 2018 — Stips v Commission
   (Case T-311/17) (1)

   (2018/C 104/72)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-616/16 and C-617/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Gianni Pantuso and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors — Directives 75/363/EEC and 82/76/EEC — Specialist medical training — Appropriate remuneration — Application of Directive 82/76/EEC to training begun before the prescribed deadline for the Member States to transpose it and completed after that date)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Gianni Pantuso and Others
   (Joined Cases C-616/16 and C-617/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors - Directives 75/363/EEC and 82/76/EEC - Specialist medical training - Appropriate remuneration - Application of Directive 82/76/EEC to training begun before the prescribed deadline for the Member States to transpose it and completed after that date))
   (2018/C 104/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca Ministero del Tesoro

      Defendants: Gianni Pantuso, Angelo Tralongo, Maria Michela D’Alessandro, Nello Grassi, Carmela Amato (C-616/16), Giovanna Castellano, Maria Concetta Pandolfo, Antonio Marletta, Vito Mannino, Olga Gagliardo, Emilio Nardi, Maria Catania, Massimo Gallucci, Giovanna Pischedda, Giambattista Gagliardo (C-617/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, must be interpreted as meaning that any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990 must be subject to appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, provided that that training concerns a medical speciality common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and is referred to in Articles 5 or 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.

               2.

               Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Directive 75/363, as amended by Directive 82/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of the obligation, for a Member State, to provide appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, for any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990, does not depend on the adoption, by that Member State, of measures transposing Directive 82/76. The national court is required, when it applies provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of those directives. Where, owing to the absence of national measures transposing Directive 82/76, the result prescribed by that directive cannot be achieved by interpretation, by taking account of the entirety of domestic law and applying the methods of interpretation recognised by it, EU law requires the Member State concerned to make good damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose that directive. It is for the referring court to determine whether all the conditions laid down in that regard by the case-law of the Court of Justice are met for the Member State to have incurred liability under EU law.

               3.

               Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Directive 75/363, as amended by Directive 82/76, must be interpreted as meaning that appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, for any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990 must be paid for the period of that training from 1 January 1983 and until the end of that training.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-10/18: Action brought on 12 January 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/43

         Action brought on 12 January 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission
   (Case T-10/18)
   (2018/C 104/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eesti Apteekide Ühendus MTÜ (Laagri, Estonia) (represented by: K. Paas-Mohando, and I. Kangur, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decision SA.42028 (2017/NN) adopted on 23 October 2017; (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Estonian Pharmacies Association has the legal standing to bring an action for annulment of Commission decision SA.42028 (2017/NN).

                           —

                           In compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-313/90, (2) Commission decisions not to raise objections adopted at the end of a preliminary procedure are subject to judicial review;

                           —

                           The Estonian Pharmacies Association has the legal standing to bring an action for annulment of the Commission decision SA.42028 (2017/NN) to the General Court as an interested party pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 1(h) of Regulation No 2015/1589. (3)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was under the obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU by virtue of the serious difficulties test. The Commission’s serious difficulties in adopting the contested decision and thus the violation of the procedural safeguards provided by Article 108(2) TFEU are apparent from the following:

                           —

                           The Commission has erred in law by finding that no advantage is given from State resources, because the Commission has failed to see that Finland has abused its regulatory discretion, which in turn has resulted in foregoing of State resources;

                           —

                           The Commission has erred in law by finding no selective advantage, because the Commission has failed to adequately qualify the ‘special tasks’ as SGEI;

                           —

                           The Commission has failed to collect material information in the preliminary procedure;

                           —

                           The preliminary procedure was unreasonably long (close to 30 months);

                           —

                           The Commission has resorted to an unprecedented legal definition ‘special tasks’;

                           —

                           Finland amended its Universities Act during the preliminary proceedings pursuant to which Finland used to refund corporation tax and the pharmacy fee paid by Yliopiston Apteekki Oy to the University of Helsinki, which was the central regulation of one of the reported State aid measures.

      (1)  OJ 2017, C 422, p. 10.

      (2)  Judgment of 24 March 1993, Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques and others v Commission, C-313/90, EU: C:1993:111.

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


title: Case C-538/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/11

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Thomas Murphy against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 July 2017 in Case T-90/16: Murphy v EUIPO
   (Case C-538/17 P)
   (2018/C 104/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Thomas Murphy (represented by: N. Travers SC, J. Gormley, BL, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nike Innovate CV
   By order of 30 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-617/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 30 October 2017 — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 30 October 2017 — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
   (Case C-617/17)
   (2018/C 104/14)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

      Interveners: Edward Detka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Ślaskich, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Ommer Polska sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka sp. jawna w Gliwicach, HTS Polska sp. z o.o., Jastrzębskie Zakładów Remontowych Dźwigi sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer — Polska sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski sp. jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak Bogdan Pietrzak sp. jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Marcin Nikiel, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the application of the ne bis in idem principle presupposes not only that the offender and the facts are the same but also that the legal interest protected is the same?

               2.

               Is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, (1) in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the rules of EU competition law and of national competition law which are applied in parallel by the competition authority of a Member State protect the same legal interest?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case T-74/16: Judgment of the General Court of (Ninth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — POA v European Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an application for the registration of a name under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Documents originating from the Commission — Documents originating from a Member State — Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Extent of review by the institution and the EU Courts of the Member State’s grounds for objection)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/29

         Judgment of the General Court of (Ninth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — POA v European Commission
   (Case T-74/16) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an application for the registration of a name under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Documents originating from the Commission - Documents originating from a Member State - Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Obligation to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Extent of review by the institution and the EU Courts of the Member State’s grounds for objection))
   (2018/C 112/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision Ares(2015) 5632670 of the Secretary-General of the Commission of 7 December 2015 rejecting the confirmatory application made by letter of 15 September 2015, in which the applicant sought, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to documents relating, first, to the application for registration CY/PDO/0005/01243 of ‘Halloumi’ as a protected designation of origin (PDO), in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and, second, to the earlier application for registration CY/PDO/0005/00766 of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case T-39/18: Action brought on 25 January 2018 — VF v ECB

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/38

         Action brought on 25 January 2018 — VF v ECB
   (Case T-39/18)
   (2018/C 112/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

               —

               annul the applicant’s reviewed 2016 appraisal and annual salary and bonus review (‘ASBR’) dated 24 May 2017 notified on the same day;

               —

               annul the ECB decision dated 13 September 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR;

               —

               annul the ECB decision dated 20 December 2017 and notified to the applicant on 21 December 2017 rejecting his grievance procedure against his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR;

               —

               annul the decision of non-conversion of the applicant’s contract, dated 6 March 2017;

               —

               annul the ECB decision dated 4 July 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of the decision of non-conversion of his contract;

               —

               annul the ECB decision dated 15 November 2017 and notified to him on 21 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s grievance procedure against the non-conversion of his contract;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the material and moral prejudices suffered by the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments.

               1.

               As to the non-conversion decision:

                           —

                           Plea of illegality of the Conversion Policy: violation of article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank (‘CoE’) and of article 2.0 of the Staff Regulations (‘SR’) and violation of the hierarchy of norms.

                           —

                           Plea of illegality: article 10(c) CoE and article 2.0 SR are in breach of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Recital 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP.

                           —

                           The non-conversion decision was taken on the basis of illegal appraisal and ASBR decisions.

               2.

               As to the appraisal:

                           —

                           Procedural irregularity and absence of dialogue.

                           —

                           Violation of the duty to state reason, violation of the principle of good administration and of due care and lack of information.

                           —

                           Manifest errors of appreciation.

               3.

               As to the ASBR decision:

                           —

                           Plea of illegality of the ASBR Guidelines, violation of the duty to state reasons and violation of the principle of legal certainty.

                           —

                           Lack of due explanation regarding the background of the applicant’s salary award, lack of transparency and violation of the duty to state reason.

                           —

                           Manifest error of appreciation.

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999, L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-718/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-718/17)
   (2018/C 112/25)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to indicate, at regular intervals, and at least every three months, the number of applicants who can be relocated swiftly to its territory, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 and, consequently, has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) to (11) of that decision.

               —

               Order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The two decisions adopted by the Council in September 2015, namely, Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 (1) and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601, (2) established a temporary and emergency relocation scheme, under which the Member States had the obligation to relocate from the territory of Italy and Greece persons in need of international protection.
   The Council Decisions obliged the Member States to offer every quarter places for applicants who can be relocated, ensuring thereby the prompt and orderly processing of the relocation procedure. Although nearly all the Member States relocated applicants and met their obligations in this field, Hungary has not adopted any kind of measure since the start of the relocation scheme.
   On 16 June 2017, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary concerning Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601.
   Considering that Hungary’s response was unsatisfactory, the Commission moved on to the next step of the infringement proceedings and, on 26 July 2017, sent Hungary a reasoned opinion.
   Considering that the reply to the reasoned opinion was unsatisfactory as well, the Commission decided to bring the case before the Court of Justice for a declaration that Hungary had failed to fulfil its relocation obligations.

      (1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146).

      (2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80).


title: Case T-52/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima/Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/39

         Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima/Commission
   (Case T-52/18)
   (2018/C 112/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (Eurajoki, Finland) (represented by: M. Powell, solicitor, Y. Utzschneider and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2017) 3777 final of 29 May 2017 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by EDF of New NP to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7764 — EDF/Areva reactor business) (OJ 2017 C 377, p. 5); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

      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 that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear fuel assemblies

                           —

                           As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the market for pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies, no separate market exists for European pressurised water reactor type fuel assemblies. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the acquisition by EDF of the Areva Group’s nuclear reactors business (the ‘Transaction’) on the narrower product market in question.

                           —

                           Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader pressurised water reactor fuel assemblies market would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the product market definition for nuclear services

                           —

                           As a result of these errors, the contested decision would reach the allegedly erroneous conclusion that, within the nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems, no separate product market exists for nuclear services for European pressurised water reactor type nuclear steam supply systems. Due to the alleged errors in market definition, the contested decision would fail to consider the effects of the Transaction on the narrower product market in question.

                           —

                           Moreover, the substantive assessment of the broader nuclear services market for existing nuclear steam supply systems would be vitiated by additional errors of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors in its assessment of the geographic market definition of the downstream market for the generation and wholesale of electricity

         This erroneous geographic market definition allegedly leads to additional errors of assessment of the effects of the Transaction.


title: Case C-681/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski
   (Case C-681/17)
   (2018/C 112/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: slewo // schlafen leben wohnen GmbH

      Respondent: Sascha Ledowski

      Questions referred

   For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 16(e) and — if relevant — Article 6(1)(k) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) the following questions shall be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU:

               1.

               Should Article 16(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive be interpreted as meaning that the goods referred to there which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons include goods (such as, for example, mattresses) which, although when used as intended may come into direct contact with the human body, can nevertheless be made saleable again by means of suitable (cleaning) measures by the trader?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           a)

                           What requirements must the packaging of goods satisfy for it to be considered that sealing within the meaning of Article 16(e) of the Consumer Rights Directive exists?
                           and

                           b)

                           Does the information that the trader has to give pursuant to Article 6(1)(k) of the Consumer Rights Directive before the contract becomes binding have to be provided in such a way that the consumer is informed, with specific reference to the article to be purchased (here a mattress) and the seal that is applied, that he will lose the right of withdrawal if he removes the seal?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.


title: Case C-682/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 6 December 2017 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-682/17)
   (2018/C 112/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an installation which produces a product the production of which is not one of the activities referred to in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC (1) (such as, in this case, the production of sulphur) and which, at the same time, carries on the activity of ‘combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW’ that is subject to the emission trading scheme pursuant to Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC, an electricity generator within the meaning of Article 3(u) of Directive 2003/87/EU, in the case where a secondary facility within the same installation also produces electricity for that installation and a (small) proportion of that electricity is released for consideration to the public electricity network?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               If an installation as described in Question 1 is an electricity generator within the meaning of Article 3(u) of Directive 2003/87/EC, is that installation eligible for an allocation for heat under Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (2) even in the case where the heat satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 3(c) of Decision 2011/278/EU but does not fall within any of the categories referred to in Article 10a(1), third subparagraph, (3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC — heat from the combustion of waste gases for the production of electricity, district heating and high-efficiency cogeneration?

               3.

               If, on the basis of the answers to the first two questions, the heat produced in the installation at issue is eligible for an allocation:
               Does the CO2 released into the atmosphere as part of the conditioning of natural gas (in the form of sour gas) in the ‘Claus process’, whereby the CO2 inherent in natural gas is separated from the gas mixture, constitute an emission which, for the purposes of the first sentence of Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, occurs as a result of the process referred to in Article 3(h)(v)?

                           a)

                           For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, can CO2 emissions occur ‘as a result of’ a process in which the CO2 inherent in the raw material is physically separated from the gas mixture and released into the atmosphere, even though that process as such does not give rise to additional carbon dioxide, or does that provision make it mandatory for the CO2 released into the atmosphere to occur for the first time as a result of that process?

                           b)

                           Is a carbon-containing raw material ‘used’ within the meaning of Article 3(h)(v) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU where, in the ‘Claus process’, the naturally-occurring gas is used to produce sulphur and, in the course of that procedure, the carbon dioxide inherent in the natural gas is released into the atmosphere, even though the carbon dioxide inherent in the natural gas is not part of the chemical reaction taking place in that process, or does the term ‘use’ make it mandatory for the carbon to be part of, or indeed essential to, the chemical reaction taking place?

               4.

               If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, on the basis of which benchmark is the allocation of free emissions allowances to be carried out in the case where an installation subject to the emission trading scheme satisfies both the defining conditions of a heat benchmark sub-installation and the defining conditions of a process emissions sub-installation? Does entitlement to an allocation on the basis of the heat benchmark take priority over entitlement to an allocation for process emissions or does entitlement to an allocation for process emissions take precedence over the heat benchmark and the fuel benchmark because the latter allocation is more specific to the case in question?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-719/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-719/17)
   (2018/C 112/26)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               1.

               declare that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, at least every three months, the relevant number of applicants who could be relocated swiftly to its territory, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (1) and Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, (2) and hence also the further obligations concerning relocation laid down in Articles 5(4) to (11) of those two Council decisions;

               2.

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In September 2015 the Council adopted a provisional programme of emergency relocation by means of two decisions, namely Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Decision (EU) 2015/1601, on the basis of which the Member States undertook to relocate from Italy and Greece persons in clear need of international protection.
   The Council decisions impose an obligation on the Member States to offer every three months available places for relocation, so as to ensure a speedy and orderly relocation process. While nearly all States carried out relocations and accepted obligations in that field, the Czech Republic has not carried out any relocations since August 2016, and for more than a year now has not offered any new places.
   On 15 June 2017 the Commission started a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations against the Czech Republic.
   The Czech Republic’s answer was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to proceed to the next step in the procedure, namely the issuing of a reasoned opinion on 26 July 2017.
   The answer to the reasoned opinion was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to bring an action against the Czech Republic before the Court of Justice of the European Union for failure to fulfil obligations concerning relocation.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146.

      (2)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80.


title: Case C-263/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-263/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))
   (2018/C 112/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Schenker Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Schenker Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-53/18: Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Germany v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

         Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-53/18)
   (2018/C 112/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1995 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 on static thermoplastic tanks for above-ground storage of domestic heating oils, kerosene and diesel fuels in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 36);

               —

               annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1996 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 12285-2:2005 on Workshop fabricated steel tanks in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 39); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decisions infringe the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The contested decisions adopt no position on the central question under Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (1) as to whether the harmonised standards at issue conform to the relevant mandate and whether the fulfilment of the basic requirements for construction works can be ensured on the basis of those standards. As a result, neither the applicant nor the General Court can assess which essential considerations of fact and of law the defendant took as its basis.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of substantive-law rules of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011

                           —

                           First, the contested decisions infringe the first and second sentence of Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. Contrary to those provisions, the defendant does not appear to have assessed the extent to which the harmonised standards at issue conform to the relevant mandates. Consequently, it failed to recognise that there is in fact no such conformity.

                           —

                           Second, the contested decisions infringe Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1) and (2) and the first sentence of Article 17(3), of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. The defendant disregarded the fact that the contested harmonised standards include no methods or criteria for assessing performance in relation to the essential characteristics for the mechanical resistance, stability, breaking resistance and load-bearing capacity of tanks for use coming within the scope of the standards in earthquake and flood areas, and that they are therefore insufficient in respect of three essential characteristics of construction products and consequently jeopardise compliance with the basic requirements for construction works.

                           —

                           Third, the defendant committed an error of assessment by rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request that it add, in each case, a restriction when publishing the references for the contested harmonised standards, thereby infringing Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.

                           —

                           Lastly, the defendant committed a further error of assessment when adopting the contested acts by reason of the fact that it rejected the applicant’s alternative request that it withdraw the references for the contested standards from the Official Journal of the European Union on the basis of the possibility, which in the Commission’s view was extant, of a restriction or prohibition on the part of the Member States.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).


title: Case T-118/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation for the financial year 2017 and providing for pre-financing at a rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and the obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Financial regulation — Rules of application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Proportionality)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament
   (Case T-118/17) (1)

   ((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation for the financial year 2017 and providing for pre-financing at a rate of 33 % of the maximum grant amount and the obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation of impartiality - Rights of the defence - Financial regulation - Rules of application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 112/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Plasschaert and É. Montens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Parliament Decision FINS-2017-28 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant in so far as that decision suspends the payment of that grant for the financial year 2017 and limits the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum grant amount subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-58/18: Action brought on 2 February 2018 — Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/41

         Action brought on 2 February 2018 — Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)
   (Case T-58/18)
   (2018/C 112/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ramona Mahr (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: T. Rohracher, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Especialidades Vira, SL (Martorell, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Xocolat’ — Application for registration No 14 335 574

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 in Case R 541/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-688/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 December 2017 — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.
   (Case C-688/17)
   (2018/C 112/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayer Pharma AG

      Defendants: Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the expression ‘provide … appropriate compensation’ referred to in Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1), be interpreted to mean that Member States must establish the substantive rules of law on the liability of parties and the amount and method of compensation, by virtue of which the courts of the Member States can order applicants to compensate defendants for losses caused by measures which the court subsequently revoked or which subsequently lapsed due to an act or omission by the applicant, or in cases in which the court has subsequently found that there was no infringement or threat of infringement of an intellectual property right?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is in the affirmative, does Article 9(7) of that Directive preclude opposition to the legislation of a Member State by virtue of which the rules to be applied to the compensation referred to in that provision of the Directive are the general rules of that Member State on civil liability and compensation according to which the court cannot oblige the applicant to provide compensation for losses caused by a provisional measure which was subsequently held to be unfounded due to the invalidity of the patent, and which were incurred as a result of the defendant’s failure to act as would generally be expected in the circumstances in question, or losses for which the defendant is responsible for that same reason, provided that, when requesting the provisional measure, the applicant acted as would generally be expected in those circumstances?

      (1)  OJ L 157, 2004 p. 45.