201805250071897482018/C 200/043162016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804174521Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Enhanced protection against expulsion — Conditions — Right of permanent residence — Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State — Period of imprisonment — Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence — Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link — Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN410120180417EN00044152Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Germany, United Kingdom) — B v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero (C-424/16)
   (Joined Cases C-316/16 and C-424/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 28(3)(a) — Enhanced protection against expulsion — Conditions — Right of permanent residence — Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State — Period of imprisonment — Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence — Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link — Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment)’2018/C 200/04Language of the case: German and English
      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: B (C-316/16), Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-424/16)

      Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/16), Franco Vomero (C-424/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it is a prerequisite of eligibility for the protection against expulsion provided for in that provision that the person concerned must have a right of permanent residence within the meaning of Article 16 and Article 28(2) of that directive.

            2.

            Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a Union citizen who is serving a custodial sentence and against whom an expulsion decision is adopted, the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’ laid down in that provision may be satisfied where an overall assessment of the person’s situation, taking into account all the relevant aspects, leads to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that detention, the integrative links between the person concerned and the host Member State have not been broken. Those aspects include, inter alia, the strength of the integrative links forged with the host Member State before the detention of the person concerned, the nature of the offence that resulted in the period of detention imposed, the circumstances in which that offence was committed and the conduct of the person concerned throughout the period of detention.

            3.

            Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a person satisfies the condition of having ‘resided in the host Member State for the previous ten years’, within the meaning of that provision, must be assessed at the date on which the initial expulsion decision is adopted.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

      OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


201805250141897552018/C 200/16132017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412131311Case C-13/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1310120180412EN0016131131Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique
   (Case C-13/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 10(2) — Assessment of the safety of cosmetic products — Qualifications of the safety assessor — Recognition of equivalent training courses — Disciplines similar to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine — Member States’ discretion)’2018/C 200/16Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

      Defendant: Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé and des Droits des femmes, Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, formerly Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that the recognition of equivalence of courses, laid down in that provision, can cover courses other than those delivered in third countries.

            2.

            Article 10(2) of Regulation No 1223/2009 must be interpreted as conferring on each Member State the power to determine disciplines that are ‘similar’ to pharmacy, toxicology or medicine, as well as levels of qualification satisfying the requirements of that regulation, on condition that it complies with the objectives laid down by that regulation, consisting, in particular, in guaranteeing that the person entrusted with the assessment of the safety of cosmetic products has a qualification that enables him to ensure a high level of protection of human health.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


201805250161897562018/C 200/271242018CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180215212221Case C-124/18 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by Red Bull GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15: Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2110120180215EN0027211222Appeal brought on 15 February 2018 by Red Bull GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15: Red Bull GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-124/18 P)2018/C 200/27Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: Red Bull GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt, S. Petivlasova, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Marques, Optimum Mark sp. z o.o.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the contested decision of 30 November 2017 in joined cases T-101/15 and T-102/15,

            —

            annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 December 2014 in Cases R 2037/2013-1 and R 2036/2013-1, and

            —

            order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In its first plea, the appellant submits that the General Court's (GC) interpretation of Article 7(1)(a) and 4 CTMR (
         1
      ), in the context of colour combination marks, infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. The GC improperly imposed a new and disproportionate requirement for the graphic representation of colour combination marks based on the erroneous premise that such marks are intrinsically less precise in nature. First, this premise is without any legal basis and does not correspond to any of the objects set forth in the legislation, and has the effect that it unlawfully and disproportionally discriminates against colour combination marks vis-à-vis all other types of trade marks, such as single colour marks, word marks, design marks and others. Second, the criteria set out in the contested decision goes against the nature of colour combination marks per se, which, as clearly accepted by this Court in Libertel (
         2
      ), are not spatially delimited. The contested decision effectively limits colour combination marks per se to figurative, position or pattern marks in colour. Third, the contested decision potentially renders more than 85 % of colour combination marks of the type of the contested marks on the defendant's register invalid.
   In its second plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed Article 7(1)(a) and 4 CTMR due to an incorrect and impermissible interpretation of the Heidelberger Bauchemie (
         3
      ) judgment in that it imposed three cumulative requirements for the graphic representation of colour combination marks, namely (i) the precise shades of the colours in question, (ii) the ratios of the colours in question and (iii) the spatial arrangement of the colours. These requirements were not essential to that decision, and have a disproportionately harsh effect solely on the category or class of marks or signs consisting of colour combination or colour, per se, signs. Moreover, the third, and newly imposed, cumulative requirement is said to be justified by the alleged ‘limited intrinsic ability of colours to convey precise meaning’. However, the latter was until now reviewed under the distinctiveness limb of the registerability test of a mark and not under the graphic representation requirement, which means that from the outset it results in the invalidity of a registration without an option to show acquired distinctiveness or otherwise cure it. The contested decision also infringes Article 4 CTMR by requiring an ‘explicit’ description for the type of marks at issue and by unlawfully reducing the effective definition of such marks only to those having one spatial (in other words figurative) arrangement corresponding to the supposed actual subsequent use of the mark.
   In its third plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation by failing to appreciate and take into account in its decision that the first contested mark was filed prior to the Heidelberger Bauchemie judgment and thus disregarding the potential application of the principles set out by the Court's rulings in Lambretta (
         4
      ) and Cactus (
         5
      ). It also infringed this principle by not carrying out an overall assessment of authorised and reliable sources, applicable rules and provisions, case law of the EU and the defendant’s Guidelines to determine if all the relevant circumstances of the present case could cumulatively give rise to the finding that the defendant gave the appellant precise, unconditional and consistent assurances, which the appellant relied upon by complying with their terms, which led to the entertaining of a valid legitimate expectation on the appellant's part.
   In its fourth plea, the appellant submits that the GC infringed the principle of proportionality by not considering the disproportionality of the cancellation of both contested marks in the exceptional circumstances of the present case. In particular, the GC failed to consider that the objectives of precision and clarity, as well as legal certainty, could legitimately be met if the appellant was invited and permitted to clarify the description of both marks so that they remained on the register, rather than cancelling both registrations.
   In its fifth plea, the appellant submits that the GC breached its rules of procedure by incorrectly applying Article 134(1) of the rules and ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings. The exceptional circumstances of the present case and the principle of equity require, according to Article 135(1) of the rules of procedure, that the appellant should not be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings (and that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant).
   (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Judgment of 6 May 2003, Libertel, C-104/01, EU:C:2003:244.
   (
         3
      )	Judgment of 24 June 2004, Heidelberger Bauchemie, C-49/02, EU:C:2004:384.
   (
         4
      )	Judgment of 16 February 2017, Brandconcern BV v. EUIPO and Scooters India (Lambretta), C-577/14 P, EU:C:2017:122.
   (
         5
      )	Judgment of 11 October 2017, EUIPO v. Cactus SA (Cactus), C-501/15 P, EU:C:2017:750.


201805250101897532018/C 200/053202016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804105511Case C-320/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN510120180410EN00055151Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille — France) — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS
   (Case C-320/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Rule on information society services — Definition — Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Criminal penalties)’2018/C 200/05Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

      Party to the main criminal proceedings

   Uber France SAS

      Other party to the proceedings: Nabil Bensalem

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law that lays down criminal penalties for the organisation of a system for putting customers in contact with persons carrying passengers by road for remuneration using vehicles with fewer than 10 seats, without being authorised to do so, concerns a ‘service in the field of transport’ in so far as it applies to an intermediation service that is provided by means of a smartphone application and forms an integral part of an overall service the principal element of which is the transport service. Such a service is excluded from the scope of application of those directives.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


201805250441897012018/C 200/542972017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424424211Case T-297/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4210120180424EN0054421421Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)
   (Case T-297/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark WE KNOW ABRASIVES — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Competence of the Board of Appeal in appeals limited to part of the services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/54Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 (Case R 1595/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2017 (Case 1595/2016-4) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign WE KNOW ABRASIVES for services in Class 35 corresponding to the following description: ‘Advertising; commercial management services; secretariat services; wholesale service in the field of metallic construction products; commercial administration’;

            2.

            Rejects the remainder of the form of order sought of VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG;

            3.

            Orders VSM.Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG and EUIPO each to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


201805250601897322018/C 200/413122016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425333311Case T-312/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3310120180425EN0041331331Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)
   (Case T-312/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/41Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, 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: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 2870/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


201805250211897262018/C 200/292082018CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180323232421Case C-208/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2310120180323EN0029231242Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 March 2018 — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Ltd
   (Case C-208/18)2018/C 200/29Language of the case: Czech
      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jana Petruchová

      Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Ltd

      Question referred

   Is Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (
         1
      ) 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 to be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who engages in trade on FOREX, the international currency exchange market, on the basis of actively placing his own orders, although through a third party who is professionally engaged in that trade, must be regarded as a consumer under that provision?
   (
         1
      )	OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1.


201805250251897272018/C 200/302502018CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180411242521Case C-250/18: Action brought on 11 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2410120180411EN0030241252Action brought on 11 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
   (Case C-250/18)2018/C 200/30Language of the case: Croatian
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Mataija and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Croatia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare that, by failing to specify that the stone aggregate deposited in the Biljane Donje landfill is waste, rather than a by-product, and must therefore be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98; (
                  1
               )

            —

            declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98;

            —

            declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the holder of the waste deposited in the landfill of Biljane Donje carried out the treatment of waste himself or had the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking that carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98;

            —

            order the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   As regards the infringement of Article 5(1) of the Directive:
   Article 5(1) of the Directive lays down cumulative criteria that must all be fulfilled in order for a substance or object resulting from a production process the primary aim of which is not the production of that substance or object to be considered a by-product rather than as waste. The Republic of Croatia incorrectly applied Article 5(1) to the waste deposited in Biljane Donje, given that it failed to determine that it constituted waste instead of a by-product even though further use of the waste was not certain, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive.
   As regards the infringement of Article 13 of the Directive:
   Under Article 13 of the Directive, Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment. Even though the Croatian authorities established that the Biljane Donje landfill is situated on a site that is neither designated nor prepared for the deposit of waste and on land lacking protecting measures against water or air propagation, none of the measures adopted by the Croatian authorities in relation to the landfill has been implemented to date. That situation has remained unchanged for a long period of time, resulting in environmental deterioration. Thus, the Republic of Croatia has failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment.
   As regards the infringement of Article 15(1) of the Directive:
   Under Article 15(1) of the Directive, Member States are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Directive. The Croatian authorities have failed to ensure that the holder of the waste carried out the treatment of waste or had the treatment handled by one of the persons referred to in Article 15(1). This is clear from the fact that, at the time of filing of the present proceedings, the waste was still, unlawfully, in Biljane Donje, where it has been for a long time. The Croatian authorities have failed to put in place effective measures to ensure that the holder of the waste carries out the treatment of waste himself or has it handled by one of the persons referred to in Article 15(1) of the Directive.
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3; ‘the Directive’).


201805250471897152018/C 200/424262016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425343411Case T-426/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Aa AROMAS artesanales — Earlier EU figurative mark Aromas PERFUMARIA Beleza em todos os sentidos — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Relevant public — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3410120180425EN0042341341Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)
   (Case T-426/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Aa AROMAS artesanales — Earlier EU figurative mark Aromas PERFUMARIA Beleza em todos os sentidos — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Relevant public — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/42Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aromas Selective, SL (Dos Hermanas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros and J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2016 (Case R 766/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aromas Selective and Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Aromas Selective, SL, including the costs necessarily incurred by Aromas Selective, SL, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


201805250111897492018/C 200/191102017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412151511Case C-110/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1510120180412EN0019151151Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-110/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax on the income of Belgian residents — Calculation of income from immovable property — Application of two different calculation methods depending on the place in which the immovable property is situated — Calculation on the basis of the cadastral value for immovable property located in Belgium — Calculation based on the actual rental value for immovable property located in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA) — Difference in treatment — Restriction on the free movement of capital)’2018/C 200/19Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: P. Cottin, M. Jacobs and L. Cornelis, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented immovable property or immovable property rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes or to legal persons which make such property available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as immovable property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as immovable property located outside Belgium is concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

            2.

            Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


201805250171897252018/C 200/074782016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804197711Case C-478/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev (Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN710120180419EN00077171Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Group OOD, Kosta Iliev
   (Case C-478/16 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Examination by the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Third subparagraph of Rule 50(1))’2018/C 200/07Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, P. Ivanov and D. Stoyanova- Valchanova, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Group OOD (represented by: D. Dragiev and A. Andreev, advokati), Kosta Iliev (represented by: S. Ganeva, advokat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


201805250131897402018/C 200/201482017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419161611Case C-148/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1610120180419EN0020161161Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf
   (Case C-148/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 14 — Establishment a posteriori of the invalidity or revocation of a trade mark — Date on which the conditions for revocation or invalidity must be met — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 34(2) — Claiming the seniority of an earlier national trade mark — Effects of that claim on the earlier national mark)’2018/C 200/20Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

      Defendant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which the invalidity or revocation of an earlier national mark, the seniority of which is claimed for an EU mark, may be established a posteriori only if the conditions for that invalidity or that revocation were met, not only on the date on which that earlier national mark was surrendered or the date on which it lapsed, but also on the date on which the judicial decision making that finding is taken.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


201805250041897432018/C 200/085252016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804197822Case C-525/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN720120180419EN00087282Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão — Portugal) — MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA v Autoridade da Concorrência
   (Case C-525/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU — Concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’ — Discriminatory prices on a downstream market — Cooperative for the management of rights relating to copyright — Royalty payable by domestic entities which provide a paid television signal transmission service and television content)’2018/C 200/08Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MEO — Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia SA

      Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência
   Other party to the proceedings: GDA — Cooperativa de Gestão dos Direitos dos Artistas Intérpretes ou Executantes, CRL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’, for the purposes of subparagraph (c) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, must be interpreted to the effect that, where a dominant undertaking applies discriminatory prices to trade partners on the downstream market, it covers a situation in which that behaviour is capable of distorting competition between those trade partners. A finding of such a ‘competitive disadvantage’ does not require proof of actual quantifiable deterioration in the competitive situation, but must be based on an analysis of all the relevant circumstances of the case leading to the conclusion that that behaviour has an effect on the costs, profits or any other relevant interest of one or more of those partners, so that that conduct is such as to affect that situation.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201805250431897002018/C 200/553542017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423424322Case T-354/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4220120180423EN0055422432Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Genomic Health v EUIPO (ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE)
   (Case T-354/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)’2018/C 200/55Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Genomic Health, Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States of America) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 (Case R 1682/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ONCOTYPE DX GENOMIC PROSTATE SCORE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Genomic Health, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


201805250531897072018/C 200/315542014TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426262611Case T-554/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — 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) 2017/1011))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2610120180426EN0031261261Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J-M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)
   (Case T-554/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MESSI — Earlier EU word marks MASSI — 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) 2017/1011))’2018/C 200/31Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: initially J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, then J.-B. Devaureix and J.-Y. Teindas Maillard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially O. Mondéjar Ortuño, then S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Ceballos Rodríguez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between J-M.-E.V. e hijos and M. Messi Cuccittini.

      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 April 2014 (Case R 1553/2013-1);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO, in addition to its own costs, to bear those incurred by Mr Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini;

            3.

            Orders J-M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


201805250751897302018/C 200/562122018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326434421Case T-212/18: Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4310120180326EN0056431442Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex
   (Case T-212/18)2018/C 200/56Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: Karolina Romańska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Tetkowska, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the application both admissible and well founded;

            —

            annul the decision of 14 June 2017 of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, headquartered in Warsaw, terminating Karolina Romańska’s employment contract on the basis of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

            —

            find that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against Karolina Romańska;

            —

            require the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to cease committing acts of discrimination and harassment against its workers and to introduce an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy within the Agency;

            —

            order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay Karolina Romańska damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100000, by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

            —

            order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay damages in the amount of PLN 4402 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered;

            —

            order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the defendant Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against the applicant. During the time she was employed by the defendant, the applicant was the victim of harassment, humiliation, scapegoating, public humiliation and other abusive conduct within her sector, of which her superiors were aware but in respect of which no action was taken.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the harassment at the Agency triggered a health disorder. In April 2016 the applicant suffered a sudden and acute health disorder, as confirmed by her medical records and for which she is still undergoing treatment. The doctors established that this health disorder was nervous in origin, caused in particular by harassment at work and burn out. The applicant incurred the medical expenses which are set out in the medical records appended to the application.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging a failure to provide assistance in connection with harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency. The applicant turned to the defendant for assistance, as referred to in the EU Staff Regulations, in connection with harassment and discrimination at the Agency. The applicant submitted a series of suggestions to the defendant as to how the situation might, in her view, be acceptably resolved. The defendant ignored the issue of the applicant’s health and remained passive, tolerating a situation that was deleterious to the applicant and allowing that situation to continue.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant by the defendant on the basis of her gender, nationality and trade union membership. The applicant repeatedly applied for a higher position at the Agency. Notwithstanding her extensive education, command of several foreign languages, excellent annual appraisals and continuing efforts to improve her qualifications, the applicant was never promoted. The reasons for this state of affairs are discriminatory. Following the applicant’s repeated contact with the defendant concerning the acts of harassment and discrimination suffered by her, the defendant proposed that the applicant go on a mission, for which she made all the necessary preparations, including learning a foreign language from scratch to the level of being able to communicate in that language, and then the defendant cancelled the mission four days prior to departure. The defendant justified the cancellation of the mission on the grounds of the applicant’s contact with a trade union.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed. The applicant’s dismissal was unfair and unsubstantiated. The termination of the employment contract was the result of the applicant’s refusal to accept a situation in which she was subjected to harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency.


201805250721897202018/C 200/434682016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423343522Case T-468/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3420120180423EN0043342352Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Verein Deutsche Sprache v Commission
   (Case T-468/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages — Partial refusal of access — Declaration by the Commission that the documents do not exist — Presumption of lawfulness — Error of law — Obligation to state reasons)’2018/C 200/43Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Verein Deutsche Sprache eV (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3714 final of 10 June 2016 relating to a request for access, made by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), to certain documents relating to a Commission decision concerning the alteration of the appearance of the press room in the Berlaymont Building to display only the French and English languages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders the Verein Deutsche Sprache eV to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


201805250091897392018/C 200/095322016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804118811Case C-532/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as ‘taxable activity’ — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN810120180411EN00098181Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v SEB bankas AB
   (Case C-532/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Supply of land — Mischaracterisation as ‘taxable activity’ — Indication of VAT on the initial invoice — Amendment of that indication by the supplier)’2018/C 200/09Language of the case: Lithuanian
      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Defendant: SEB bankas AB

      Operative part of the judgment

            1)

            Article 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to adjust undue value added tax (VAT) deductions set down in that article also applies to cases where the initial deduction could not be made lawfully because the transaction giving rise to that deduction was exempt from VAT. By contrast, Articles 187 to 189 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the mechanism for the adjustment of undue VAT deductions provided for in those articles is not applicable in such cases, in particular in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the initial VAT deduction was unjustified as it concerned a VAT-exempt transaction relating to the supply of land.

            2)

            Article 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the initial deduction of VAT could not be made lawfully, it is for the Member States to determine the date on which the obligation to adjust the undue VAT deduction arises and the time period for which that adjustment must be made, in accordance with the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. It is for the national court to determine whether, in cases such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those principles have been respected.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


201805250291897022018/C 200/211522017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419161722Case C-152/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1620120180419EN0021162172Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
   (Case C-152/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17/EC — Obligation to review prices after the award of the contract — No such obligation in Directive 2004/17/EC or arising from the general principles underlying Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2004/17/EC — Cleaning and maintenance services linked to railway transport operations — Article 3(3) TEU — Articles 26, 57, 58 and 101 TFEU — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Inadmissibility — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Provision of national law not implementing EU law — Lack of jurisdiction)’2018/C 200/21Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

      Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, and the general principles underlying that directive are to be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which do not provide for periodic price review after a contract has been awarded in the sectors covered by that directive.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


201805250581897292018/C 200/572262018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180402444521Case T-226/18: Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4410120180402EN0057441452Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission
   (Case T-226/18)2018/C 200/57Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, United States), Wacker Chemie AG (Munich, Germany), Momentive Performance Materials GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany), Shin-Etsu Silicones Europea BV (Almere, Netherlands), Elkem Silicones France SAS (Lyon, France) (represented by: M. Navin-Jones, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

            —

            Annul the Contested Act under Article 263 TFEU;

            —

            Declare that Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation, and/or relevant provisions of this Annex (in particular, Sections 1.1.2 and/or 1.2.2), are illegal and inapplicable in the case at hand, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, insofar as they prevent or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion on the properties of D4 and D5;

            —

            In the event that: (a) the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) Member State Committee's Opinion of Apri12015; (b) the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment's Opinion of March 2016; (c) the ECHA Socio-Economic Assessment Committee Opinion of June 2016; (d) the ECHA PBT Expert Group conclusions / decisions of November 2012; and/or (e) relevant ECHA Guidance — are not regarded as preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the Contested Act — to declare those acts as illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

            —

            Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants regarding these proceedings; and

            —

            Take any other measure as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and failure to state reasons — regarding the risk assessment.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, and arbitrary decision-making — regarding the hazard assessment. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and lack of adequate statement of reasons — regarding the hazard assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal certainty, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging denial of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard; lack of adequate statement of reasons; due process — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging an act manifestly exceeding the limits of discretionary powers; manifest error in the exercise in the exercise of discretionary powers and breach of the institutional balance of powers — regarding the hazard and risk assessment.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest exceedance of the limits of discretionary powers, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, and the manifest errors of appreciation of the relevant facts and of the relevant provisions in law.

            8.

            Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, lack of adequate statement of reasons, manifest errors of fact and law — regarding the adoption, application, meaning, and scope, of the REACH Restriction.

            9.

            Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — regarding the application and scope of the REACH Restriction.

            10.

            Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, illegality, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest errors in fact and law, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — before the adoption of the REACH Restriction.

            11.

            Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the relevant provisions of Annex XIII REACH and other relevant previous acts and measures, which prevent and/or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion of the properties of D4 and D5, are inapplicable according to Article 277 TFEU.


201805250711897192018/C 200/325612014TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423262722Case T-561/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission (Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2620120180423EN0032262272Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 –One of Us and Others v Commission
   (Case T-561/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Institutional law — European Citizens’ Initiative — Research policy — Public health — Development cooperation — EU financing of activities involving the destruction of human embryos — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Actions for annulment — Capacity to bring legal proceedings — Challengeable act — Partial inadmissibility — Judicial review — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)’2018/C 200/32Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented initially by: C. de La Hougue, and subsequently by J. Paillot, lawyers, and finally by P. Diamond, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szwarc, A. Miłkowska and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: U. Rösslein and E. Waldherr, and subsequently by U. Rösslein and R. Crowe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final of 28 May 2014 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Uno di noi’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

            3.

            Orders the Republic of Poland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


201805250331897512018/C 200/105412016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804129911Case C-541/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a ‘Questions and answers’ document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN910120180412EN00109191Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-541/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 — Article 2(6) — Article 8 — Cabotage operations — Definition — Definition contained in a ‘Questions and answers’ document drawn up by the European Commission — Legal force — National implementing measures limiting the number of loading points and unloading points which may be part of the same cabotage operation — Discretion — Restriction — Proportionality)’2018/C 200/10Language of the case: Danish
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Grønfeldt and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Sønndahl Wolff, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1)

            Dismisses the action;

            2)

            Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


201805250401897232018/C 200/33432015TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423272821Case T-43/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission (Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2710120180423EN0033271282Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — CRM v Commission
   (Case T-43/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Protected geographical indication — Piadina Romagnola or Piada Romagnola — Registration procedure — Allocation of powers as between the Commission and the national authorities — Link between the product’s reputation and its geographical origin — Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012 — Scope of the Commission’s check of the application for registration — Article 7(1)(f)(ii), Article 8(1)(c)(ii) and Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 — Effects on the procedure before the Commission of annulment of the tendering rules by a national court — Obligation of the Commission to conduct inquiries — Principle of sound administration — Effective judicial protection)’2018/C 200/33Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented initially by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi and subsequently by: G. Forte and C. Marinuzzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Bianchi, J. Guillem Carrau and F. Moro, and subsequently by: D. Bianchi, A. Lewis and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and M. Scino, avvocato dello Stato), Consorzio di Promozione e Tutela della Piadina Romagnola (Co.P.Rom) (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and P. Rodilosso, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)) (OJ 2014 L 316, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders CRM srl to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


201805250571897352018/C 200/447472016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423353511Case T-747/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3510120180423EN0044351351Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 – Vincenti v EUIPO
   (Case T-747/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Opinion of the Invalidity Committee — Discretion of Appointing Authority — Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff Regulations — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)’2018/C 200/44Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 refusing to recognise the applicant’s permanent total incapacity and to declare that he is to be retired.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Guillaume Vincenti to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201805250681897362018/C 200/592402018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180416464722Case T-240/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4620120180416EN0059462472Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission
   (Case T-240/18)2018/C 200/59Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the European Commission’s decision of 12 December 2017 in Case M.8672 (EASYJET / CERTAIN AIR BERLIN ASSETS), ref. C(2017) 8776 final;

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

            —

            require the Commission to address, in the context of its statement in defence, certain questions raised by the applicant concerning the manner in which the assessment of the effects on competition of the concentration concerned was carried out, and to provide certain evidence serving as the basis for its decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty on European Union (‘the Treaty’) and the provisions for its implementation, in particular those of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (
                  1
               ) by failing to carry out a full assessment of the adverse effects of the concentration concerned from the point of view of competition.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the impact of the concentration concerned with regard to the possibility of providing passenger air transport services to and from certain airports, thereby committing a serious and manifest error in its assessment of that concentration. A properly conducted analysis of the concentration concerned would necessarily have led to the conclusion that its implementation will have a series of negative effects on competition, and that it will have a greater negative impact on competition than the absence of a concentration in the opposite scenario.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the ‘Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers’ by failing to examine whether the efficiency gains achieved by the concentration concerned offset the negative effects of that concentration on competition.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to impose requirements on easyJet designed to prevent the significant distortion of effective competition by the concentration concerned.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for its implementation by failing to carry out an assessment of the impact of the concentration concerned on the internal market in the context of the State aid in the amount of EUR 150 million previously granted to Air Berlin on 15 August 2017 by the Federal Republic of Germany. That aid was approved by the Commission by Commission Decision C(2017) 6080 final of 4 September 2017 approving the State aid granted to Air Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by providing an inadequate statement of reasons in its decision, as demonstrated by, inter alia, the failure to carry out a full analysis of the facts of the case, the failure to take account of a series of elements needed to provide a reliable verification of the full impact of the concentration on competition, the failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of that concentration on the internal market in the context of the State aid previously granted to Air Berlin, and the failure to provide any grounds for not carrying out such an assessment.

      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


201806080531931572018/C 221/122592018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180411111111Case C-259/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 11 April 2018 — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos, S.A. v Asendia Spain, S.L.U.
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1110120180411EN0012111111Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 11 April 2018 — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos, S.A. v Asendia Spain, S.L.U.
   (Case C-259/18)2018/C 221/12Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos, S.A.

      Defendant: Asendia Spain, S.L.U.

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is national legislation under which the guarantee given to the postal operator designated for the provision of a universal postal service entails it being the only entity authorised to distribute means of postage other than stamps contrary to Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (
                  1
               ) (the Postal Directive), as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008? (
                  2
               )

            2.

            If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the EU postal rules that private postal operators are required to have bricks-and-mortar premises open to the public in order to be able to distribute and market means of postage other than stamps?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.
   (
         2
      )	Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).


201806150721955032018/C 231/323872017TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516262611Case T-387/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2610120180516EN0032261261Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges)
   (Case T-387/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 231/32Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Triggerball GmbH (Baiern-Piusheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Emrich, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 376/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a ball-like object with edges as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Triggerball GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


201806290411986272018/C 249/413932010TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517333311Case T-393/10 INTP: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (Proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Rectification — Failure to adjudicate)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN3310120180517EN0041331331Order of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission
   (Case T-393/10 INTP) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Rectification — Failure to adjudicate)’2018/C 249/41Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Hamm, Germany), Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hamm), Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Request for interpretation of the judgment of 15 July 2015, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (T-393/10, EU:T:2015:515) and, in the alternative, application for rectification of and compensation for the failure to adjudicate in respect of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


201806290181986332018/C 249/072302018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803304521Case C-230/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2018 — PI
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN410120180330EN00074152Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2018 — PI
   (Case C-230/18)2018/C 249/07Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Complainant: PI

      Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State, to be understood as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as in the case of Paragraph 19(3) of the Tiroler Landespolizeigesetz (Tyrol State police Law), LGBl. (State Law Gazette) No 60/1976, last amended by Law LGBl. No 56/2017, makes it possible for bodies of an authority, even without a prior administrative procedure, to be able to take measures of direct authority and coercive power, such as, in particular, the on-the-spot closure of a business establishment, without these merely being interim measures?

            2.

            From the perspective of equality of arms and the perspective of an effective legal remedy, is Article 47 of the Charter, potentially in conjunction with Articles 41 and 52 thereof, to be understood as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as laid down in Paragraph 19(3) and (4) of the Tyrol State police Law, provides for de facto measures of direct authority and coercive power, such as, in particular, closures of business establishments, without documentation and without providing confirmation to the person concerned?

            3.

            From the perspective of equality of arms, is Article 47 of the Charter, potentially in conjunction with Articles 41 and 52 thereof, to be understood as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purpose of annulling de facto measures of direct authority and coercive power, such as, in particular, closures of business establishments, requires a substantiated application to lift that closure from the person affected by those de facto measures, as laid down in Paragraph 19(3) and (4) of the Tyrol State police Law?

            4.

            From the perspective of an effective legal remedy, is Article 47 of the Charter, in conjunction with Article 52 thereof, to be understood as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as in the case of Paragraph 19(4) of the Tyrol State police Law, allows only for a right to apply for annulment that is restricted to specific conditions in the case of a de facto coercive measure in the form of the closure of a business establishment?


201807130752004432018/C 268/543462018TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529454511Case T-346/18: Action brought on 29 May 2018 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN4510120180529EN0054451451Action brought on 29 May 2018 — Advance Magazine Publishers v EUIPO — Enovation Brands (VOGUE)
   (Case T-346/18)2018/C 268/54Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enovation Brands, Inc. (Aventura, Florida, United States).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

      Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 12 010 039

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2018 in Case R 259/2017-4.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the part of the contested decision relating to Rule 20(7)(c) /Rule 50(1) CTMIR;

            —

            order the Other Party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Rules 20(7)(c)/ 50(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-568/17: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/21

      Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Korea National Insurance Corporation v Council and Commission
      (Case T-568/17) (1)

      (2018/C 311/23)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


               6.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/13

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
      (Case E-1/18)
      (2018/C 314/11)
      An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 July 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Claire Simpson, Erlend M. Leonhardsen, Catherine Howdle and Carsten Zatschler, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
      The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

                  1.

                  Declare that, by maintaining in force provisions such as Section 14-13 first, second and third paragraphs and Section 14-14 first paragraph of the National Insurance Act, which render the father’s entitlement to parental benefits dependent on the mother’s situation whereas the mother’s entitlement is not dependent on the father’s situation, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (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 (recast)).

                  2.

                  Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the cost of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

                  —

                  This case concerns how parental benefits are paid in Norway. Parental benefits are benefits payable to parents (mothers and fathers) during a period of leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child.

                  —

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that some of the rules on parental benefits in Norway directly discriminate against fathers. In short, under these rules, whether the father gets parental benefits in whole, in part – or at all – depends on whether the mother is or has been working (or takes part in similar activities). In contrast, the mother’s rights to such benefits are independent of the father’s activities.

                  —

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that mothers and fathers are in comparable situations when it comes to bringing up children, and that the different treatment in the Norwegian parental benefit rules unlawfully discriminates against fathers on grounds of sex, breaching Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.

                  —

                  The Authority further considers that such discrimination cannot be justified under Article 3 of Directive 2006/54/EC as a ‘positive action’ to help mothers achieve equality in working life, nor on any other grounds.


title: Case T-438/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/23

      Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Pareto Trading v EUIPO — Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH)
      (Case T-438/18)
      (2018/C 319/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pareto Trading Co., Inc. (Carlstadt, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, C. Martínez-Tercero Molina, V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bikor Elżbieta Korbut (Gdańsk, Poland) and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics Małgorzata Wedekind (Gdańsk)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH — European Union trade mark No 9 561 788

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2018 in Case R 1826/2015-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  declare that the costs in this proceedings shall be borne by the Defendant, including all the costs which the Applicant has incurred before both the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have resulted in the present Application.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-455/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission
      (Case T-455/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/54)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and P. Ferrari, and subsequently by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, and subsequently by H. van Vliet, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-445/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 — Hearses)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/20

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA
      (Case C-445/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 - Hearses))
      (2018/C 328/25)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

         Defendant: Pilato SpA

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that hearses such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings must be classified under heading 8703 of that combined nomenclature.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.