title: Case T-629/16: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-629/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Earlier EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes on a shoe - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 142/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 597/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas and Shoe Branding Europe.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case C-117/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III — Environmental impact assessment — Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment — Annulment — Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others
   (Case C-117/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III - Environmental impact assessment - Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment - Annulment - Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment))
   (2018/C 142/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comune di Castelbellino

      Defendants: Regione Marche, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Marche Servizio Infrastrutture Trasporti Energia — P. F. Rete Elettrica Regionale, Provincia di Ancona

      Other party to the proceedings: Società Agricola 4 C S.S.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where a project to increase the capacity of a plant for the production of electricity, such as the project at issue in the main proceedings, has not been subject to a preliminary examination of the need to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to national legislative provisions subsequently declared incompatible with Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment in that regard, EU law requires Member States to nullify the unlawful consequences of that breach and does not preclude that plant from being subject, after completion of the project, to a new assessment by the competent authorities for the purpose of verifying whether it complies with that directive and, where appropriate, to an environmental impact assessment, on condition that the national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them. The environmental impact of the project from the time of its completion must also be taken into account. Those authorities are entitled to take the view, on the basis of national provisions in force at the time they are required to give a decision, that such an environmental impact assessment is not required, in so far as those provisions are compatible with that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-81/18: Action brought on 09/02/2018 — Barata v Parliament

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/53

         Action brought on 09/02/2018 — Barata v Parliament
   (Case T-81/18)
   (2018/C 142/71)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Joao Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               annul, first, the decision of 30/10/2017 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union, lodged on 19/06/2017;

               —

               annul, second, the decisions of 20/03/2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the training programme under the 2016 certification procedure, and rejecting his request for a review under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul, third, the decision of 14/02/2016 of the European Parliament notifying the applicant of his results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for the 2016 certification procedure;

               —

               annul, fourth, the European Parliament’s decision of 08/12/2017 informing the applicant that he was ranked 36 out of 87 applications for the 2016 certification procedure, with the result that his name does not appear on the relevant draft list;

               —

               annul, fifth, the European Parliament’s decision of 21/12/2016 refusing to review the applicant’s assessment and score and excluding him from the said certification process;

               —

               annul, sixth, the European Parliament’s internal notice of competition 2016/014 of 07/10/2016;

               —

               annul, finally, in its entirety, the European Parliament’s draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme;

               —

               award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, manifest error of assessment of relevant facts and documents, breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, further, plea of illegality and inapplicability related to the alleged illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence, breach of the notice of competition and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations in conjunction with Annex III to those Regulations and further of the duty of sound and good administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter and manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of equality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58 (1), breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and further breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

      (1)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).


title: Case C-289/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification — Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures — Rights of the debtor — No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus — Estonia) — Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others
   (Case C-289/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification - Minimum standards for uncontested claims procedures - Rights of the debtor - No indication of the address of the institution to which a notice may be addressed contesting the claim or before which an appeal against the decision may be brought))
   (2018/C 142/20)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Maakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

      Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case C-53/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-53/18)
   (2018/C 142/40)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a ‘tied agent’ covered by the harmonisation provided for in Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 April 2004, (1) and from what aspects;

               2.

               Is the correct application of Directive No 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004, in particular Articles 8, 23 and 51 of that directive, and of the principles and rules of the Treaties with regard to non-discrimination, proportionality, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment precluded by provisions of national law, such as those in Article 55(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (Consolidated Law on provisions on financial intermediation pursuant to Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as amended, and also Article 111, paragraph 2 of the Resolution No 16190 of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob of 29 October 2007 (Regulation laying down the rules implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 on intermediaries), that:

                           a)

                           allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition of the exercise of the activity of a ‘tied agent’ (adviser authorised to offer offsite services — formerly financial planner) in relation to actions not entailing the loss of good repute, as defined by national law, and at the same time do not concern compliance with the provisions implementing the Directive;

                           b)

                           allows the ‘discretionary’ prohibition for up to one year of the exercise of the activity of ‘tied agent’ (consultant authorised to provide offsite services — formerly financial [Or. 13] planner) in proceedings seeking to prevent the ‘strepitus’ deriving from the charge in criminal proceedings whose duration is as a rule much longer than a year’?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-387/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 183 — Refund of overpaid VAT — Late refund — Amount of default interest due under national law — Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person — Whether permissible — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera BV
   (Case C-387/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Article 183 - Refund of overpaid VAT - Late refund - Amount of default interest due under national law - Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person - Whether permissible - Fiscal neutrality - Legal certainty))
   (2018/C 142/07)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Defendant: Nidera BV

      Intervener: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the amount of interest normally payable under national law on overpaid value added tax which was not refunded in due time for reasons connected to circumstances not attributable to the taxable person, such as the high amount of that interest when compared with the amount of the overpaid value added tax, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-665/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)
   (Case T-665/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark €$ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 142/60)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the sign €$ as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2016 (Case R 2086/2015-5);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza — Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 142/08)
   Language of the cases: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case C-119/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency — Exchange rate risk borne entirely by the consumer — Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract — Main subject matter of the loan agreement)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/16

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA
   (Case C-119/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 3(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 5 - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency - Exchange rate risk borne entirely by the consumer - Significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract - Main subject matter of the loan agreement))
   (2018/C 142/21)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean

      Defendants: SC OTP BAAK Nyrt, acting through OTP BANK SA, acting through Sucursala SIBIU, SC OTP BAAK Nyrt., acting through OTP BANK SA

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term incorporated in a loan agreement concluded in a foreign currency between a seller or supplier and a consumer, which has not been negotiated individually, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the loan must be repaid in that same currency, comes within the concept of ‘main subject matter of the contract’, within the meaning of that provision, as that term lays down an essential obligation characterising that contract.

               2.

               Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a loan agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as a consequence of which the entire exchange rate risk is transferred to the borrower, and which is not drafted transparently, with the result that the borrower is unable to assess, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the financial consequences of signing that agreement, is liable to be regarded as unfair by the national court in its assessment of that term where it is found that, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. In that regard, it is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, taking account in particular of the expertise and knowledge of the seller or supplier concerning possible variations in the exchange rate and the risks inherent in contracting a loan in a foreign currency, first, the possible failure to comply with the requirement of good faith and second, the existence of a significant imbalance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-418/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1) — Article 57(2) and (3) — Article 64 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 22(2) — Rule 40(6) — Invalidity proceedings — Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Burden of proof — Rejection of the applications — Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence — Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO — Referral — Consequences)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Rezon OOD
   (Case C-418/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1) - Article 57(2) and (3) - Article 64 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2) - Rule 40(6) - Invalidity proceedings - Applications for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier national trade mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Burden of proof - Rejection of the applications - Taking into account by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of new evidence - Annulment of the decisions of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO - Referral - Consequences))
   (2018/C 142/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH (represented by: T. Lührig, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Rezon OOD (represented by: P. Kanchev, advokat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders mobile.de GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Rezon ODD.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-106/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/58

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)
   (Case T-106/18)
   (2018/C 142/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroecopark (Majadahonda, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark VERA GREEN — Application for registration No 15 068 646

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 982/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-126/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) — Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract — Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Scope of the term ‘drafted in plain, intelligible language’ — Partial or total invalidity of the contract)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/17

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Orsolya Czakó
   (Case C-126/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Articles 4(2), 5 and 6(1) - Terms defining the main subject matter of the contract - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Scope of the term ‘drafted in plain, intelligible language’ - Partial or total invalidity of the contract))
   (2018/C 142/22)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

      Defendant: Orsolya Czakó

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a bank in a Member State, in which the amount of money that will be made available to that consumer denominated in a foreign currency as an accounting currency, defined in relation to the payment currency, is clearly indicated, satisfy the requirement of those provisions that contractual terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language. In so far as the determination of that amount depends on the exchange rate applicable at the time of the release of the funds, that requirement means that the methods of calculation of the amount actually loaned and the rate of exchange applicable should be transparent, so that an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect may assess, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from that contract, including, inter alia, the total cost of the sum borrowed.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a national court finds that the terms of a loan contract concluded between a consumer and a bank are unfair, such as the terms at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude that court from declaring that that contract is invalid in its entirety if it cannot continue in existence after the deletion of those terms.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-518/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 — Article 35 TFEU — De minimis aid in the form of tax relief — National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ZPT’ AD v Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-518/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 - Article 35 TFEU - De minimis aid in the form of tax relief - National legislation excluding investments in the production of goods intended for export from the benefit of that tax relief))
   (2018/C 142/10)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘ZPT’ AD

      Defendants: Narodno sabranie na Republika Bulgaria, Varhoven administrativen sad, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Consideration of the third part of the third question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] to de minimis aid.

               2)

               Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation No 1998/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude investments in assets used for export-related activities from the benefit of tax relief constituting de minimis aid.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case T-855/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA (REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Exceeding of financial ceilings — Concept of ‘linked enterprise’)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Fertisac v ECHA
   (Case T-855/16) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Exceeding of financial ceilings - Concept of ‘linked enterprise’))
   (2018/C 142/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gomez Rodriguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux and L. Tosoni, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of ECHA Decision SME(2016) 5150 of 15 November 2016, which states that the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions required in order to benefit from a reduced fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposes payment of an administrative charge and invoices Nos 10060160 and 10060161 issued by the ECHA and annexed to Decision SME(2016) 5150.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fertisac, SL to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 51 — Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders — Directive 2004/17/EC — Clarification of tenders — National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty — Principles relating to the award of public works contracts — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — MA.T.I. SUD SpA v Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA v Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)
   (Joined Cases C-523/16 and C-536/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 51 - Rectification of procedural shortfalls in tenders - Directive 2004/17/EC - Clarification of tenders - National legislation making the rectification by tenderers of the documentation submitted subject to the payment of a financial penalty - Principles relating to the award of public works contracts - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality))
   (2018/C 142/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: MA.T.I. SUD SpA (C-523/16), Duemme SGR SpA (C-536/16)

      Intervener: China Taiping Insurance Co. Ltd (C-523/16)

      Defendants: Centostazioni SpA (C-523/16), Associazione Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza e Assistenza in favore dei Ragionieri e Periti Commerciali (CNPR) (C-536/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union Law, in particular Article 51 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the principles relating to the award of public contracts, including the principles of equal treatment and transparency referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation, under which the contracting authority may in a procedure for the award of a public contract, invite any tenderer whose tender is vitiated by serious irregularities within the meaning of that regulation to rectify its tender, subject to the payment of a financial penalty, provided that the amount of that penalty is consistent with the principle of proportionality, which it is for the referring court to determine.
   However, those provisions and principles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation establishing a mechanism of assistance in compiling the documentation under which the contracting authority may require a tenderer, on payment of a financial penalty, to remedy the lack of a document which, according to the express provisions in the contract documentation, must result in the exclusion of that tenderer, or to eliminate the irregularities affecting its tender such that any corrections or changes would amount to a new tender.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-60/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 31 January 2018 — AS Tallinna Vesi v Keskkonnaamet
   (Case C-60/18)
   (2018/C 142/42)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: AS Tallinna Vesi

      Respondent: Keskkonnaamet

      Intervener: Keskkonnaministeerium

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, should Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives be interpreted to mean that a national legal act providing that end-of-waste status depends upon whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste is in keeping with that provision of Directive 2008/98/EC?

               2.

               In the case where end-of-waste criteria have not been set at EU level for a particular type of waste, does the first sentence of Article 6(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives grant the waste holder the right to apply to the competent authority or to a court in a Member State for a decision on end-of-waste status in keeping with the applicable case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, irrespective of whether criteria set in a generally applicable national legal act exist for a particular type of waste?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.


title: Case T-117/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/58

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (200 PANORAMICZNYCH)
   (Case T-117/18)
   (2018/C 142/76)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 688

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2194/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

         in the alternative

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 688), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘200 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-74/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 5 February 2018 — A Ltd
   (Case C-74/18)
   (2018/C 142/43)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Ltd

      Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalontayksikkö.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the interpretation of Article 157(1), first subparagraph of Directive 2009/138/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13(13) and (14) thereof, is the Member State entitled to levy tax on insurance premiums considered as being the State in which the company (a legal person) which has taken out the insurance policy is established or the State in which the company which is the subject of the company acquisition is established, where an insurance company with its registered office in Great Britain, which does not have a place of business in Finland offers insurance covering risks relating to a company acquisition

                           —

                           to a company which does not have a place of business in Finland, which, in the company acquisition, acts as the purchaser, and the target company is established in Finland;

                           —

                           a company established in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the buyer, where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland;

                           —

                           a company which has no place of business in Finland which, in the company acquisition, acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is established in Finland;

                           —

                           a company established in Finland, which in the company acquisition acts as the seller where the target company of that acquisition is not established in Finland.

               2.

               Does the fact that the insurance covers only the tax liabilities of the company which arose before the company acquisition have any impact in the present case?

               3.

               Does the question whether the company acquisition concerns shares or a part of the business of the target company have an impact in the present case?

               4.

               If the company acquisition concerns the shares of the target company is representations made by the seller to the buyer concern only the fact that the seller is the owner of the shares sold and that they are not subject to third-party claims have any effect in the present case?

      (1)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1).


title: Case C-577/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scope — Article 2(1) — Annex I — Activities subject to the trading scheme — Production of polymers — Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation — Application for free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-577/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Article 2(1) - Annex I - Activities subject to the trading scheme - Production of polymers - Use of heat supplied by a third-party installation - Application for free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020))
   (2018/C 142/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trinseo Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an installation for the production of polymers, in particular the polymer polycarbonate, such as the installation at issue in the main proceedings, which obtains the heat needed for that production from a third-party installation, does not fall within the scope of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme established by that directive, since it does not generate direct CO2 emissions.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-118/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/59

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (300 PANORAMICZNYCH)
   (Case T-118/18)
   (2018/C 142/77)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 696

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2195/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

         in the alternative

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 696), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘300 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

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


title: Joined Cases C-142/17 and C-143/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi (C-142/17), Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17) (References for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Directive 2006/54/EC — National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma v Manuela Maturi (C-142/17), Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17)
   (Joined Cases C-142/17 and C-143/17) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 2006/54/EC - National rules providing for the temporary possibility for performing artists having reached retirement age to continue to perform until the age previously laid down for entitlement to a pension, fixed at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men))
   (2018/C 142/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera, Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-142/17), Catia Passeri (C-143/17)

      Defendants: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera, Luca Troiano, Mauro Murri (C-142/17), Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma (C-143/17)

      Re:

   Article 14(1)(c) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that national rules, such as those laid down in Article 3(7) of Decree-Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100, of 29 June 2010, in the version in force at the material time, pursuant to which workers employed as dancers having reached the retirement age laid down by those rules of 45 years old for both women and men, have the option for a transitional period of two years to continue to work until the working age limit laid down by the previous rules, set at 47 years old for women and 52 years old for men, establishes direct discrimination based on sex which is prohibited by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-103/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG — Earlier national word mark NORMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO — Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG)
   (Case T-103/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NORMOSANG - Earlier national word mark NORMON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430)))
   (2018/C 142/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Recordati Orphan Drugs (Puteaux, France) (represented by: J. Quirin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Normon, SA (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: I. Gonzalez-Mogena Gonzalez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2016 (Case R 831/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Normon and Recordati Orphan Drugs.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Recordati Orphan Drugs to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case C-233/17 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — GX v European Commission
   (Case C-233/17 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Civil service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/248/13 - Decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list))
   (2018/C 142/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               GX shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-119/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/60

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (400 PANORAMICZNYCH)
   (Case T-119/18)
   (2018/C 142/78)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 704

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2200/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

         in the alternative

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 704), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘400 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-91/18: Action brought on 8 February 2018 European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/34

         Action brought on 8 February 2018 European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-91/18)
   (2018/C 142/45)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Kyratsou and F. Tomat)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force legislation

                           i.

                           which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià (pomace brandy) manufactured by ‘systematic distillers’ a rate of excise duty reduced by 50 % compared to the standard national rate, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 23(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 110 TFUE;

                           ii.

                           which imposes on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘occasional’ distillers a further reduced rate of excise, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC, (2) Article 3(1) of Directive 92/84/EEC and Article 110 TFEU 92/83/EEC;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 24 September 2015, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Greek authorities indicating that, by imposing on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘permanent distillers’ a rate of excise duty of reduced by 50 % compared to the standard national rate, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 23(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) and that, secondly, by imposing on tsipouro/tsikoudià manufactured by ‘occasional’ small-scale distillers a further reduced rate of excise, whereas alcoholic beverages imported from other Member States are subject to the standard rate of excise duty, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 19, 21 and 22(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC, Article 3(1) of Directive 92/84/EEC and Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE).
   The provisions of EU law governing the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages do not provide for the application of a reduced rate of excise duty on tsipouro/tsikoudià. Furthermore, the imposition of a further reduced rate of excise duty on tsipouro/tsikoudià produced by ‘occasional’ small-scale distillers is contrary to the applicable provisions of Directive 92/83/EEC, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of Directive 92/84/EEC. Consequently, with regard to that measure, the current Greek legislation infringes those directives. Furthermore, that legislation infringes the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU, as it imposes a more onerous tax on imported alcoholic beverages similar to tsipouro/tsikoudià, and infringes the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU, as it indirectly protects tsipouro/tsikoudià with regard to other alcoholic beverages which are mainly imported from other Member States and are in competition with that local product.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29).


title: Case C-336/17 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’ — Protection of stray animals — Psychological effects on adults and children — Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Article 4(3))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/19

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-336/17 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’ - Protection of stray animals - Psychological effects on adults and children - Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Article 4(3)))
   (2018/C 142/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis, Nathalie Louise Klinge (represented by: P. Brockmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case T-120/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/61

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)
   (Case T-120/18)
   (2018/C 142/79)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 712

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2201/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

         in the alternative

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 712), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-159/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 — Earlier national figurative mark SOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2018 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)
   (Case T-159/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972 - Earlier national figurative mark SOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 142/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Solemo Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Müller and A. Fottner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Solemo and Claro Sol Cleaning.

      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 9 January 2017 (Case R 478/2016-1);

               2.

               Orders Solemo Oy to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-102/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch
   (Case C-102/18)
   (2018/C 142/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

      Question referred

   Is the use of the form as set out in Annex 4 as Form IV, established in accordance with the advisory procedure under Article 81(2) of the EU Succession Regulation, (1) mandatory or merely optional for the purposes of an application for a European Certificate of Succession under Article 65(2) of the EU Succession Regulation, in accordance with Article 1(4) of the Implementing Regulation for the EU Succession Regulation? (2)

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30).


title: Case C-529/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/19

         Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO
   (Case C-529/17 P)
   (2018/C 142/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Isabel Martín Osete (represented by: V. Wellens, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-230/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark RSTUDIO — Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
   (Case T-230/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark RSTUDIO - Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
   (2018/C 142/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and G. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 493/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Embarcadero Technologies and Rstudio.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-693/17 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2017 by BMB sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2017 in Case T-695/15: BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/20

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2017 by BMB sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2017 in Case T-695/15: BMB sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-693/17 P)
   (2018/C 142/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BMB sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Czubkowski, radca prawny)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferrero SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2017 in Case T-695/15 served on the appellant on 11 October 2017; and

               —

               set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2015 in Case R 1150/2012-3;

         Alternatively the Court of Justice shall set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court if the state of proceedings does not permit a decision by the Court of Justice.
   According to article 138(1) of the Rules the Court of Justice should also:

               —

               order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs of the present appeal; and

               —

               order Ferrero Spa and EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the appellant before the General Court; and

               —

               order Ferrero Spa to pay the costs of proceedings before EUIPO concerning Decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 2 pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(l)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Design (1) due to error of law and manifest error in assessment:

               i.

               that the graphical representation of the earlier trade mark is included in the contested design;

               ii.

               that the earlier trade mark and contested design are highly similar; and

               iii.

               that the Board of Appeal committed no error when it held that there is a likelihood of confusion between earlier trade mark and contested design.

         Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(l)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Design in connection with the general principles of sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations due to an error of law and manifest error in assessment that reference made by the Board of Appeal to Article 8(l)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (2) in paragraph 33 of the Decision, is a mere formal error that did not have a decisive effect of the resolution of the dispute, and that it is not necessary to take into consideration national case-law on the IR in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-672/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — TVA Directive — Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property — Right of option available to taxable persons — Implementation by the Member States — Deduction of input tax — Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions — Adjustment of the initial deduction — Not permissible)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-672/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - TVA Directive - Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property - Right of option available to taxable persons - Implementation by the Member States - Deduction of input tax - Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Not permissible))
   (2018/C 142/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation which provides for the adjustment of the value added tax initially deducted on the ground that a property, for which the right to opt for taxation was exercised, is regarded as no longer being used by the taxable person for the purposes of its own taxed transactions, where that property has remained unoccupied for more than two years, even though it is established that the taxable person has sought to rent it during that period.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-35/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/51

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — La Marchesiana v EUIPO — Marchesi Angelo (MARCHESI)
   (Case T-35/18)
   (2018/C 142/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: La Marchesiana Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, F. Santonocito and A. Sobol, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marchesi Angelo Srl (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MARCHESI consisting of seven brush strokes coloured orange, blue, yellow, red, green, black and violet — European Union trade mark No 4 187 159

      Procedure before EUIPO: Application for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 in joined Cases R 1753/2016-4 and R 1802/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision and dismiss in its entirety Angelo Marchesi’s request for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use;

               —

               find, by way of variation of the contested decision, that EU trade mark No 4 187 159 was put to genuine use within the European Union during the reference period, pursuant to Article 58(1) EUTMR, in relation to goods/services in Classes 8 (Hand tools and implements, in particular kitchen utensils), 16 (Paper, cardboard, printed matter, books, magazines, artists’ materials, stationery, teaching material), 21 (Household or kitchen utensils and containers, cooking pots, plates, glasses, glassware, porcelain and earthenware), 29 (Foodstuffs of animal origin, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, fruit sauces; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats), 30 (Coffee and artificial coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, flour, bread, pasta, pastries, ices, additives for improving the flavour of the foods), 33 (Alcoholic beverages), as well as goods/services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

               —

               in the alternative and by way of partial variation of the contested decision, dismiss the opponent’s application for cancellation of EU trade mark No 4 187 159 for non-use in relation to goods and services in Classes 30 (Coffee), 41 (Educational and training activities, training courses) and 43 (Providing of food and drink, services provided by businesses which undertake to obtain food and drink ready for consumption provided by bars, restaurants, self-service restaurants, canteens);

               —

               order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of these proceedings and both the preceding procedural stages.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the evidence of use for the purpose of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-122/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/63

         Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Shimano Europe (PRO)
   (Case T-122/18)
   (2018/C 142/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger and A. Marx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shimano Europe BV (Nunspeet, Netherlands).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PRO — Application for registration No 14 468 904

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 1332/2017-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No 002654773 filed against EUTM application No 014 468 904;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order Shimano Europe B.V. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

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


title: Case C-7/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 3 January 2018 — Modesto Jardón Lama v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
   (Case C-7/18)
   (2018/C 142/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Modesto Jardón Lama

      Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

      Question referred

   Must Article 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which requires as a condition for access to an early retirement pension that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned under that same national legislation, the term ‘pension to be received’ being interpreted as the actual pension from the competent Member State (in this case, Spain) alone, without also taking into account the actual pension which that person may receive through another benefit of the same kind from one or more other Member States?


title: Case C-116/18: Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/36

         Action brought on 14 February 2018 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-116/18)
   (2018/C 142/47)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, because it did not communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In accordance with Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, the Member States are under an obligation to adopt and implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 10 April 2016, and to communicate those measures to the Commission. Therefore, it is for the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose a directive into national law within the prescribed time limit and to communicate those measures to the Commission.
   The Commission also proposes that a penalty of EUR 42 377,60 be applied to Romania for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2014/26/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case. The amount of that penalty has been determined by taking into account the seriousness and the duration of the infringement, as well as the need to ensure that the penalty has a deterrent effect, according to that Member State’s ability to pay.
   The time limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 10 April 2016.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.