title: Case C-531/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Elda Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/85/EEC — Article 4(1) — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Breastfeeding worker — Risk assessment of her work — Challenged by the worker concerned — Directive 2006/54/EC — Article 19 — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Burden of proof)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Elda Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
   (Case C-531/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/85/EEC - Article 4(1) - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Breastfeeding worker - Risk assessment of her work - Challenged by the worker concerned - Directive 2006/54/EC - Article 19 - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of sex - Burden of proof))
   (2017/C 424/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elda Otero Ramos

      Defendants: Servicio Galego de Saúde, Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19(1) of 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 must be interpreted as applying to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a breastfeeding worker challenges, before a court or other competent authority of the Member State concerned, the risk assessment of her work in so far as she claims that the assessment was not conducted in accordance with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding.

               2.

               On a proper construction of Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the worker in question to provide evidence capable of suggesting that the risk assessment of her work had not been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 92/85 and from which it can therefore be presumed that there was direct discrimination on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive 2006/54, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. It would then be for the defendant to prove that that risk assessment had been conducted in accordance with the requirements of that provision and that there had, therefore, been no breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.


title: Case T-109/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission (Action for annulment — EDRF — Reduction in financial aid — Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood’ — Failure to comply with the time limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/35

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-109/10) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EDRF - Reduction in financial aid - Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood’ - Failure to comply with the time limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
   (2017/C 424/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented intially by: C. Schiltz, then by: P. Franzen, subsequently by: L. Delvaux and D. Holderer and finally by: D. Holderer, acting as Agents, and P. Kinsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented initially by: M. Jacobs and T. Materne, subsequently by: M. Jacobs, and finally by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, subsequently by: G. de Bergues and finally by: J. Bousin and D. Colas, acting as Agents) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: C. Wissels, M. Noort and Y. de Vries and subsequently by: M. Noort, M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 — (ERDF No 970010008) insofar as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 — (ERDF No 970010008) is annulled insofar as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-192/16: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher, Peter Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 355(3) TFEU — Status of Gibraltar — Article 49 TFEU — Article 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Purely internal situation)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/14

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher, Peter Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-192/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 355(3) TFEU - Status of Gibraltar - Article 49 TFEU - Article 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Purely internal situation))
   (2017/C 424/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher, Peter Fisher

      Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Intervening parties: Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar

      Operative part of the order

   Article 355(3) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 49 TFEU or Article 63 TFEU, is to be interpreted as meaning that the exercise of the freedom of establishment or of free movement of capital by British nationals between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar constitutes, as a matter of EU law, a situation confined in all respects within a single Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-664/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 — eSlovensko v Commission

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/45

         Action brought on 27 September 2017 — eSlovensko v Commission
   (Case T-664/17)
   (2017/C 424/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: F. Branislav, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision Ref. ARES(2017)3107844-21/06/2017 of the European Commission excluding the applicant from participating in all procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation No 966/2012 and from the award of funds governed by Regulation 2015/323;

               —

               order the defendant to conduct a new audit, reviewing its findings as to admissible costs;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, particularly improper legal evaluation of facts and findings.

                           —

                           The applicant argues that there was no reasonable basis for the Commission’s decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging inadequate justification of the contested decision.

                           —

                           The Commission evidently failed to properly and impartially review all circumstances of the case.


title: Case T-119/10: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Netherlands v Commission (Actions for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood protection’ — Non-compliance with the period prescribed for the adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/36

         Order of the General Court of 27 September 2017 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-119/10) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood protection’ - Non-compliance with the period prescribed for the adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
   (2017/C 424/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (initially by Y. de Vries, J. Langer and C. Wissels, and subsequently by J. Langer and M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented: initially by M. Jacobs and T. Materne, and subsequently by M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, Agents) and by French Republic (represented: initially by G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, and subsequently by J. Bousin and D. Colas, Agents)

      Parties

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial assistance granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial assistance granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008) is annulled in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Belgium and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-592/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 12 October 2017 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 12 October 2017 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S
   (Case C-592/17)
   (2017/C 424/37)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

      Question referred

               1.

               Must spindles with the specific features as described be deemed to be part of the child safety gate?

                           —

                           If the first question is answered in the affirmative, so that the spindles are deemed to be part of the child safety gate, must the spindles then be classified under CN heading 9403 90 10 or CN heading 7326 and 4421?

                           —

                           If the first question is answered in the negative, so that the spindles are not deemed to be part of the child safety gate, must the spindles then be classified under CN heading 7318 15 90 or CN heading 7318 19 00?

               2.

               If spindles with the specific features as described must be classified under CN heading 7318 15 90, the EU Court of Justice is requested to provide a preliminary ruling on the following question:

                           —

                           Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid as a result of the fact that the Commission and the Council — according to the WTO’s Appellate Body — based themselves on a process that linked the definition of EU industry to EU producers’ willingness to be part of a sample and be inspected, resulting in a self-selecting process in the industry, which gave rise to a material risk of distortion of the investigation and the result?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).


title: Case C-549/16: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano v Palais Kaiserkron Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 401 — Concept of ‘turnover tax’ — Leasing of immovable property used for the purposes of trade — Liability to pay registration duty and VAT)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/15

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano v Palais Kaiserkron Srl
   (Case C-549/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Concept of ‘turnover tax’ - Leasing of immovable property used for the purposes of trade - Liability to pay registration duty and VAT))
   (2017/C 424/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano

      Defendant: Palais Kaiserkron Srl

      Operative part of the order

   Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of a proportional registration duty affecting commercial leases, such as that laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, even when those leases are also subject to value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.01.2017


title: Case C-611/17: Action brought on 23 October 2017 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/26

         Action brought on 23 October 2017 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-611/17)
   (2017/C 424/38)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 of 25 July 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 as regards certain fishing opportunities, published in Official Journal of the European Union No L 199 of 29 July 2017, particularly Article 1(2) where it amends Annex ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127, the whole of paragraph [2] of the annex to the contested regulation (containing the amendment to Annex ID to Regulation (EU) 2017/127) and the whole of recitals 9, 10, 11 and 12;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         First plea in law: infringement of Article 1 of Decision 86/238/EEC on the accession of the Community to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

   There was no obligation to transpose the ICCAT decision to quotas for swordfish catches.

         Second plea in law: failure to state reasons (second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU).

   At any rate, that decision is not reasoned.

         Third plea in law: infringement of Article 17 TEU and of Article 16 of Regulation No 1380/2013.

   The decision is contrary to the principle of relative stability and the interests of the European Union.

         Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

   In any event, the decision could not apply to the current fishing season.

         Fifth plea in law: failure to state reasons (infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU).

   The decision is unjustified in so far as it adopts the four-year period 2012-2015 as the reference period for sharing the TAC quota among the Member States.

         Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU) and an erroneous assessment of the facts.

   The exclusion of the years 2010 and 2011 from the reference period is excessive and wrong in relation to the objective of including only lawful catches in the catch data.

         Seventh plea in law: infringement of Articles 258 TFEU and 260 TFEU; lack of jurisdiction.

   It was not for the Council to penalise Italy with regards to the use of driftnets.

         Eighth plea in law: infringement of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and of Article 16 of Regulation No 1380/2013.

   The adoption of the reference period 2012-2015 has penalised Italy by reducing its capacity to fish, in breach of the principle of relative stability and without an appropriate inquiry.

         Ninth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-discrimination (Article 18 TFEU).

   This reduction unfairly discriminates against Italian fishermen.

         Tenth plea in law: infringement of the principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

   In any event, the reduction could not apply to the current fishing season.


title: Case C-640/16 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2017 — Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Action for annulment — Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Locus standi — Appellant not individually concerned)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2017 — Greenpeace Energy eG v European Commission
   (Case C-640/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Action for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Locus standi - Appellant not individually concerned))
   (2017/C 424/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Greenpeace Energy eG (represented by: D. Fouquet, J. Nysten and S. Michaels, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck-Putz, P. Němečková and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Robertson, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Greenpeace Energy eG shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-670/17: Action brought on 29 September 2017 — LG Vaquero Aviación and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/46

         Action brought on 29 September 2017 — LG Vaquero Aviación and Others v SRB
   (Case T-670/17)
   (2017/C 424/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: LG Vaquero Aviación, S.L. (Alcorcón, Spain) and 15 other applicants (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               On the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicants for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicants’ representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;

               —

               In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-166/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Operation of games of chance via websites — National legislation providing for a State monopoly — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Article 102 TFEU and Article 106(1) TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — National legislation prohibiting advertising of games of chance except for those organised by a single operator subject to strict public-authority control which has been granted the exclusive right to organise such games — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/16

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
   (Case C-166/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Operation of games of chance via websites - National legislation providing for a State monopoly - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Article 102 TFEU and Article 106(1) TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - National legislation prohibiting advertising of games of chance except for those organised by a single operator subject to strict public-authority control which has been granted the exclusive right to organise such games - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question manifestly inadmissible))
   (2017/C 424/23)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sportingbet PLC, Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd

      Defendant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 56 TFEU does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits operators established in other Member States from offering games of chance via a website, where it confers the exclusive right to operate such games on a single operator subject to strict public-authority control.

               2.

               Article 56 TFEU does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits advertising of games of chance except for games organised by a single operator which has been granted the exclusive right to organise those games.

               3.

               The first, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-704/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Marine Harvest v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Decision imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration prior to its notification and authorisation — Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Negligence — Principle ne bis in idem — Gravity of the infringement — Amount of the fine)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Marine Harvest v Commission
   (Case T-704/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Concentrations - Decision imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration prior to its notification and authorisation - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Negligence - Principle ne bis in idem - Gravity of the infringement - Amount of the fine))
   (2017/C 424/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marine Harvest ASA (Bergen, Norway) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, C. Giolito and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5089 final of 23 July 2014 imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case COMP/M.7184 — Marine Harvest/Morpol), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marine Harvest ASA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case C-65/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Article 9 — Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council — Articles 4, 5 and 7 — Customs Union — Road transport — Motor vehicle tax — Taxation of heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey crossing Hungary in transit)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Istanbul Lojistik Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-65/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 4, 5 and 7 - Customs Union - Road transport - Motor vehicle tax - Taxation of heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey crossing Hungary in transit))
   (2017/C 424/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istanbul Lojistik Ltd

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as meaning that a tax on motor vehicles such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which must be paid by persons operating heavy goods vehicles registered in Turkey and in transit through Hungarian territory, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of that article.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-671/17: Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/46

         Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)
   (Case T-671/17)
   (2017/C 424/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris, A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TURBO-K’ — Application for registration No 13 458 039

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 in Case R 2135/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the objections to the registration of the mark in their entirety;

               —

               order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-746/16: Order of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Andreassons Åkeri and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Social security — Commission decision to close an EU Pilot procedure — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Manifest inadmissibility — Application seeking the issue of an injunction — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/37

         Order of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Andreassons Åkeri and Others v Commission
   (Case T-746/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Social security - Commission decision to close an EU Pilot procedure - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings - Act not open to challenge - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility - Application seeking the issue of an injunction - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 424/53)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicants: Andreassons Åkeri i Veddige AB (Veddige, Sweden), Luke Transport AB (Laholm, Sweden), Zimit Transportförmedling AB (Veddige) (represented by: C. von Quitzow, Professor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 10 August 2016 concerning the outcome of EU Pilot Procedure 7504/15/EMPL.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Andreassons Åkeri i Veddige AB, Luke Transport AB and Zimit Transportförmedling AB shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-101/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Conditions governing the exercise of that right — Article 273 — National measures — Fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance — Invoice issued by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities — Risk of tax evasion — Refusal of the right to deduct — Proportionality — Refusal to take into account evidence of the absence of tax evasion or tax losses — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment to be delivered — No limitation)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud
   (Case C-101/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Conditions governing the exercise of that right - Article 273 - National measures - Fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance - Invoice issued by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities - Risk of tax evasion - Refusal of the right to deduct - Proportionality - Refusal to take into account evidence of the absence of tax evasion or tax losses - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment to be delivered - No limitation))
   (2017/C 424/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Paper Consult SRL

      Defendants: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax is refused to a taxable person on the ground that the trader which supplied a service to that taxable person and issued a corresponding invoice, on which the expenditure and the value added tax are indicated separately, has been declared inactive by the tax authorities of a Member State, that declaration of inactivity being public and accessible on the internet to any taxable person in that State, in the case where that refusal of the right to deduct is systematic and final, making it impossible to adduce evidence that there was no tax evasion or loss of tax revenue.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case C-519/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/17

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-519/17 P)
   (2017/C 424/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-181/16, EU:T:2017:447;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

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


title: Case T-675/17: Action brought on 29 September 2017 — Aplicacions de Servei Monsan and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/47

         Action brought on 29 September 2017 — Aplicacions de Servei Monsan and Others v SRB
   (Case T-675/17)
   (2017/C 424/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Aplicacions de Servei Monsan, SLU (Mollet del Vallés, Spain) and 79 other applicants (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               On the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation for the harm suffered, in the following amounts:

                           i.

                           Shareholders: the net financial value per Banco Popular share, which will be quantified precisely by means of further work on our expert report set out in Annex A.5, once we have been given the provisional and definitive valuations carried out by ‘independent experts’ as required under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (findings of the expert report, Annex A.5.1, page 106);

                           ii.

                           Holders of Tier 1 capital instruments: the amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, at the date of resolution, and corresponding default interest as of that date up to the date on which the corresponding reimbursement is made (expert report, Annex A.5.2, page 105);

                           iii.

                           Holders of Tier 2 capital instruments: the amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, at the date of resolution, and corresponding default interest as of that date up to the date on which the corresponding reimbursement is made (expert report, Annex A.5.3, page 12);

               —

               In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-394/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Commitments — Duty to state reasons — Relevant market — Vertical effects — Judicial review)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission
   (Case T-394/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Duty to state reasons - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Judicial review))
   (2017/C 424/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, C. van der Hoeven and G. Hakopian, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, J. Szczodrowski, H. van Vliet and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo) (OJ 2015, C 145, p. 7)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-678/17: Action brought on 3 October 2017 — Minera Catalano Aragonesa and Luengo Martínez v Commission and SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/48

         Action brought on 3 October 2017 — Minera Catalano Aragonesa and Luengo Martínez v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-678/17)
   (2017/C 424/70)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Minera Catalano Aragonesa, SA (Ariñoteruel, Spain) and Ángel Luengo Martínez (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: R. Montejo Pérez, F. Ferrara and F. Banti, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of 7 June 2017 of the Single Resolution Board (No SRB/EES/2017/08) and of the European Commission (No 1246);

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-194/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Infringement of the rights of a legal person by the publication on the internet of allegedly incorrect information concerning that person and by the failure to remove comments relating to that person — Place where the damage occurred — Centre of interests of that person)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB
   (Case C-194/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Infringement of the rights of a legal person by the publication on the internet of allegedly incorrect information concerning that person and by the failure to remove comments relating to that person - Place where the damage occurred - Centre of interests of that person))
   (2017/C 424/05)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan

      Defendant: Svensk Handel AB

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to that person can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located.
               When the relevant legal person carries out the main part of its activities in a different Member State from the one in which its registered office is located, that person may sue the alleged perpetrator of the injury in that other Member State by virtue of it being where the damage occurred.

               2.

               Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to him cannot bring an action for rectification of that information and removal of those comments before the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet is or was accessible.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-685/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Sulayr Global Service v EUIPO — Sulayr Calidad (sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE — Earlier national word mark SULAYR — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Sulayr Global Service v EUIPO — Sulayr Calidad (sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE)
   (Case T-685/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE - Earlier national word mark SULAYR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 424/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sulayr Global Service, SL (Valle del Zalabi, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sulayr Calidad, SL (Grenada, Spain) (represented initially by E. Bayo de Gispert and G. Hinarejos Mulliez, and subsequently by G. Hinarejos Mulliez and I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2015 (Case R 149/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sulayr Calidad and Sulayr Global Service.

      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 23 September 2015 (Case R 149/2015-1) to the extent that it upheld the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of services in Class 40;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sulayr Global Service, SL, for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court;

               3.

               Orders Sulayr Calidad, SL, to bear its own costs for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sulayr Global Service for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-528/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/37

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB
   (Case T-528/17)
   (2017/C 424/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: María Ballesté Torralba (Alcarrás, Spain), David Lozano Jiménez (Alcarrás), María Carmen Estruch Martínez (Alcarrás) and Ramón Ribes Jové (Alcarrás) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation in the sum of EUR 37 877 to applicants 1, in the sum of EUR 11 000 to applicants 2, and in the sum of EUR 1 309,14 to Ms María Ballesté Torralba.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-198/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 — Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Public service contract — Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Abnormally low bid — Adversarial procedure)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 — Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission
   (Case C-198/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Public service contract - Operational technical assistance to set up and manage a network facility for the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Abnormally low bid - Adversarial procedure))
   (2017/C 424/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Agriconsulting Europe SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-680/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Helibética v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/49

         Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Helibética v SRB
   (Case T-680/17)
   (2017/C 424/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;

               —

               Order the Board to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’):

                           —

                           Principally, the reimbursement of the investments made, namely EUR 1 010 677,50 in Banco Popular shares;

                           —

                           In the alternative to the above claim, EUR 514 957;

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.


title: Case C-200/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA, Arthur George Resendes and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfers of undertakings or businesses — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Obligation on the transferee to take on workers — Provision of security guard services carried out by an undertaking — Call for tenders — Award of the contract to another undertaking — Employees not taken on — National provision excluding from the ‘concept of a transfer of an undertaking or business’ the loss of a customer by an operator following the award of a service contract to another operator)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA v ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA, Arthur George Resendes and Others
   (Case C-200/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfers of undertakings or businesses - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Obligation on the transferee to take on workers - Provision of security guard services carried out by an undertaking - Call for tenders - Award of the contract to another undertaking - Employees not taken on - National provision excluding from the ‘concept of a transfer of an undertaking or business’ the loss of a customer by an operator following the award of a service contract to another operator))
   (2017/C 424/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Securitas — Serviços e Tecnologia de Segurança SA

      Defendants: ICTS Portugal — Consultadoria de Aviação Comercial SA, Arthur George Resendes and Others

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting entity has terminated the contract concluded with one undertaking for the provision of security guard services at its facilities, then concluded a new contract for the supply of those services with another undertaking, which refuses to take on the employees of the first undertaking, that situation falls within the concept of a ‘transfer of an undertaking [or] business’ within the meaning of that provision, when the equipment essential to the performance of those services has been taken over by the second undertaking;

               2.

               Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the loss of a customer by an operator following the award of a service contract to another operator does not fall within the concept of a ‘transfer of an undertaking [or] business’ within the meaning of Article 1(1).

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-522/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-179/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/17

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-179/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-522/17 P)
   (2017/C 424/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-179/16, EU:T:2017:445;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

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


title: Case T-685/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v SRB
   (Case T-685/17)
   (2017/C 424/73)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Miralla Inversiones (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   First — take note of the present application and acknowledge the lodging of annulment proceedings against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based and, once the relevant verifications have been carried out, declare the action admissible and follow the procedure set out in Article 120 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
   Second — In accordance with the application, order SRB to submit without delay the provisional valuation carried out by DELOITTE in accordance with Article 20 of the Regulation (EU) 806/2014 for the purpose of enabling the proper exercise of the right of the defence and, once that valuation has been submitted, allow the applicant a specific period to analyse and examine it in detail, so that it is in a position to oppose it during the reply stage;
   Third — In the event that it does not accept the claims made in the previous paragraph and the proceedings continue, rule that Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular and the valuation on which it is based are contrary to EU law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-26/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Debt reporting irregularities — Delays in the recovery procedure — Failure to offset funds — Determination of the amount of interest — Proportionality — Flat-rate financial correction — Articles 31 to 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Individual situations)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-26/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Debt reporting irregularities - Delays in the recovery procedure - Failure to offset funds - Determination of the amount of interest - Proportionality - Flat-rate financial correction - Articles 31 to 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Individual situations))
   (2017/C 424/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35) to the extent that it concerns the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-686/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
   (Case T-686/17)
   (2017/C 424/74)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived them of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities they owned;

               —

               Order the Board to pay to the applicants EUR 1 850 000 and the bonds’ unpaid interest accrued up to the date of repayment as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’);

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.


title: Case T-330/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark #hello digitalmente diferentes — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HELLO! — 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) — Replacement of a party to the proceedings)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Hello Media Group v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)
   (Case T-330/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark #hello digitalmente diferentes - Earlier EU word and figurative marks HELLO! - 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) - Replacement of a party to the proceedings))
   (2017/C 424/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hello Media Group, SL (Madrid, Spain), authorised to replace Hello Media, SL (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hola, SL (Madrid) (represented by: F. Arroyo Álvarez de Toledo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 (Case R 1979/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hola and Hello Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Authorises Hello Media Group, SL, to replace Hello Media, SL, as applicant;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders Hello Media Group to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-538/17: Action brought on 5 August 2017 — Jess Liberty v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/38

         Action brought on 5 August 2017 — Jess Liberty v SRB
   (Case T-538/17)
   (2017/C 424/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jess Liberty, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Aguirre de Cárcer Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Acknowledge the lodging of the action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 made by the Single Resolution Board in its Expanded Executive Session of 7 June 2017, adopting the resolution scheme concerning the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and, after having allowed access to all the documents in the file and given the possibility of making further claims, annul or revoke the contested decision, reinstating in full the legal effect of the applicant’s economic rights, in accordance with the requirements of full compensation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-695/17: Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Italy v Commission

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/51

         Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-695/17)
   (2017/C 424/75)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the notice of Open Competitions — EPSO/AD/343/17 — German-language (DE) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/344/17 — French-language (FR) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/345/17 — Italian-language (IT) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/346/17 — Dutch-language (NL) translators (AD 5), published in
                     Official Journal of the European Union No C 224 A of 13 July 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 TFEU, 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P and of the judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 in Cases T-124/15 and T-191/13, which find that it is unlawful for notices for open competitions of the European Union to limit to only English, French and German the languages which candidates may indicate as their second language.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in this respect that, by limiting to three the languages which may be chosen as a second language by candidates in open competitions of the European Union, the Commission has in practice created new rules on the use of languages by the institutions, thereby encroaching on the exclusive competence of the Council in this area.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Articles 1(2) and 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; and Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the language restriction introduced by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit the imposition on EU citizens or officials of the institutions of linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit the introduction of such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) EU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission has frustrated citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as has been authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices, in particular Articles 1d(1) and (6), 28(f), 27(2), 34(3) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, as well as an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that, by restricting to three, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes the decisive factor.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that, by providing that applications must be submitted in English, French or German and that any communications sent to candidates by EPSO relating to the progress of the competition would be written in the same language, the right of European citizens to interact with the European institutions in their own language has been adversely affected and further discrimination has been introduced against those who do not have a thorough knowledge of those three languages.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; and of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), as well as infringement of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable immediately of communicating within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That justification distorts the facts because it is not the case that the three languages in question are the ones most used for communication between different language groups within the institutions, and it is disproportionate in regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of language when less restrictive arrangements exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions.


title: Case T-545/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Afectados Banco Popular v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/38

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Afectados Banco Popular v SRB
   (Case T-545/17)
   (2017/C 424/56)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Afectados Banco Popular (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Ferrer-Bonsoms Millet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision, declare the transactions carried out under it ineffective and order the return of the property of the Banco Popular Español, S.A. to the shareholders and bond-holders concerned, putting them back in the position they were in before the intervention;

               —

               If that is not possible, declare in any event that the conversion of the bonds into shares is ineffective, maintaining bond-holders in the same position as they were in on 6 June 2017 and order the payment of compensation to shareholders by payment corresponding to the actual value of the bank and, accordingly, of the shares on 30 June 2016.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-431/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — VIMC v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Private healthcare market — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Decision rejecting a complaint — Handing of the case by a Member State’s competition authority)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — VIMC v Commission
   (Case T-431/16) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Private healthcare market - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Decision rejecting a complaint - Handing of the case by a Member State’s competition authority))
   (2017/C 424/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer and H. Grubmüller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application made on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning a breach of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by the Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (WKO, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber) or the Fachverband der Gesundheitsbetriebe (professional association of undertakings in the healthcare sector, Austria) (Case AT.40231 — VIMC v WK&FGB).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-524/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/19

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-524/17 P)
   (2017/C 424/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16, EU:T:2017:448;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

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


title: Case T-702/17: Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/53

         Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)
   (Case T-702/17)
   (2017/C 424/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

      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 figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2782/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-231/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 109(1) — Civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks — Lis pendens — Meaning of ‘same cause of action’ — Use of the name ‘Merck’ on the internet in domain names and on social media platforms — One action based on a national trade mark followed by another based on an EU trade mark — Disclaimer of jurisdiction — Scope)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH
   (Case C-231/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 109(1) - Civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks - Lis pendens - Meaning of ‘same cause of action’ - Use of the name ‘Merck’ on the internet in domain names and on social media platforms - One action based on a national trade mark followed by another based on an EU trade mark - Disclaimer of jurisdiction - Scope))
   (2017/C 424/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck KGaA

      Defendants: Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 109(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision as to the existence of the ‘same cause of action’ is satisfied where actions for infringement between the same parties, on the basis of a national trade mark and an EU trade mark respectively, are brought before the courts of different Member States, only in so far as those actions relate to an alleged infringement of a national trade mark and an identical EU trade mark in the territory of the same Member States;

               2.

               Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, where actions for infringement, the first on the basis of a national trade mark concerning an alleged infringement within the territory of a Member State and the second on the basis of an EU trade mark concerning an alleged infringement in the entire territory of the European Union, are brought before the courts of different Member States between the same parties, the court other than the court first seised must decline jurisdiction in respect of the part of the dispute relating to the territory of the Member State referred to in the action for infringement brought before the court first seised;

               3.

               Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision as to the existence of the ‘same cause of action’ is no longer satisfied where, following a partial withdrawal by an applicant, provided that it was properly declared, of an action for infringement on the basis of an EU trade mark seeking initially to prohibit the use of that trade mark in the territory of the European Union, such a withdrawal concerning the Member State referred to in the action brought before the court first seised, on the basis of a national trade mark seeking to prohibit the use of that trade mark within the territory of that Member State, the actions in question no longer relate to an alleged infringement of a national trade mark and an identical EU trade mark in the territory of the same Member States;

               4.

               Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the trade marks are identical, the court other than the court first seised must decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised only in so far as those trade marks are valid for identical goods or service.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-555/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — TW and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/39

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — TW and Others v SRB
   (Case T-555/17)
   (2017/C 424/57)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: TW, TY, UA and UB (represented by: L. Chen Chen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Take note of the lodging of the present action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to write down Banco Popular Español S.A.’s share capital to EUR 0 and to sell it subsequently to Banco de Santander S.A. for EUR 1, and after having examined all the documents officially available and assessed the grounds set out therein, declare that the decision taken by the Board in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2017 is invalid or annulled.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-281/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 — List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region — Reduction of the size of a site — Scientific error — Validity)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-281/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 - List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region - Reduction of the size of a site - Scientific error - Validity))
   (2017/C 424/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Operative part of the judgment

   Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is invalid, in so far as, by that decision, the Haringvliet site (NL 1000015) was placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.