title: Case C-528/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-528/17)
   (2017/C 374/29)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Milan Božičevič Ježovnik

      Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the importer (declarant), who at the time of the import requests exemption from payment of VAT (import in accordance with procedure 42), inasmuch as the goods are intended to be supplied in another Member State, liable for payment of the VAT (when it is subsequently found that the conditions necessary for exemption have not been satisfied) in the same way that he is liable for payment of the customs debt?

               2.

               If the answer is in the negative, is the liability of the importer (declarant) equal to that of the taxable person who makes the intra-Community supply of exempt goods, for the purposes of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?

               3.

               In the latter case, must the subjective element showing that the importer (declarant) intended to abuse the VAT scheme be assessed differently from the case of the intra-Community supply of goods referred to in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? Must that assessment be more concessive, in the light of the fact that in procedure 42 exemption from payment of VAT must be authorised in advance by the customs authority? Or must it be more restrictive, inasmuch as the transactions concerned are connected with the first entry into the European Union internal market of goods originating from third countries?


title: Case C-255/17: Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-255/17) (1)

   (2017/C 374/36)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case T-586/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — NBC Fourth Realty Corp (NaraMaxx) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark NaraMaxx — Earlier national word mark MAXX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret v EUIPO — NBC Fourth Realty Corp (NaraMaxx)
   (Case T-586/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark NaraMaxx - Earlier national word mark MAXX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Osmangazi-Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba and L. Monzón de la Flor, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (North Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented: initially by D. Stone and A. Dykes, and subsequently by A. Smith, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 1073/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between NBC Fourth Realty and Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-60/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Article 28 — Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible — Deadline for carrying out the transfer — Maximum period of detention — Calculation — Request to take charge accepted before the detention — Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-60/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 28 - Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible - Deadline for carrying out the transfer - Maximum period of detention - Calculation - Request to take charge accepted before the detention - Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision))
   (2017/C 382/17)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohammad Khir Amayry

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the detention of an applicant for international protection begins after the requested Member State has accepted the take charge request, that detention may be maintained for no longer than two months, provided, first, that the duration of the detention does not go beyond the period of time which is necessary for the purposes of that transfer procedure, assessed by taking account of the specific requirements of that procedure in each specific case and, second, that, where applicable, that duration is not to be longer than six weeks from the date when the appeal or review ceases to have suspensive effect; and

                           —

                           it does preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in such a situation, the detention to be maintained for 3 or 12 months during which the transfer could be reasonably carried out.

               2.

               Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the number of days during which the person concerned was already detained after a Member State has accepted the take charge or take back request need not be deducted from the six week period established by that provision, from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effect.

               3.

               Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the six week period beginning from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effective, established by that provision, also applies when the suspension of the execution of the transfer decision was not specifically requested by the person concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-188/17 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/26

         Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union

   (Case C-188/17 P)
   (2017/C 382/31)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Slavo Asenov Todorov (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union
   The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) declared this appeal manifestly admissible by order of 7 September 2017.


title: Case C-521/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 1 September 2017 — c.v. SNB-REACT u. a. v Deepak Mehta

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 1 September 2017 — c.v. SNB-REACT u. a. v Deepak Mehta
   (Case C-521/17)
   (2017/C 382/41)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: c.v. SNB-REACT u. a.

      Defendant: Deepak Mehta

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to recognise collecting societies of trade mark proprietors as persons with standing to pursue legal remedies in their own name to defend the rights of trade mark proprietors and to bring actions before the courts in their own name to enforce the rights of trade mark proprietors?

               2.

               Are Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that even a service provider whose service consists in registering IP addresses, thus enabling them to be anonymously linked to domains, and in renting out those IP addresses, is to be regarded as a service provider within the meaning of those provisions to whom the exemptions from liability provided for there apply?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1.


title: Case C-300/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s. (Appeal — State aid — Concept of ‘aid’ — Concept of ‘economic advantage’ — Private creditor test — Conditions of applicability — Application — Investigation obligations on the European Commission)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/24

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s.
   (Case C-300/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Private creditor test - Conditions of applicability - Application - Investigation obligations on the European Commission))
   (2017/C 382/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, J. Holmes QC, and O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-153/17: Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/45

         Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council
   (Case T-153/17)
   (2017/C 382/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 definitively adopted on 5 December 2016;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, alleging that, in the present case, the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 adopted by the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, insufficient reasoning and a breach of the duty of care.


title: Case T-755/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After) (European Union trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)
   (Case T-755/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for figurative EU trade mark Take your time Pay After - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 382/54)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro La Rocca (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2016 (Case R 406/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Take your time Pay After as EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alessandro La Rocca to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case C-480/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
   (Case C-480/17)
   (2017/C 382/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frank Montag

      Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude a national rule under which compulsory contributions to an occupational pension scheme made by a non-resident taxpayer (on the basis of his membership of a bar association in the Member State, which is mandatory on professional grounds for the purposes of his activity carried on in several Member States) are not treated as deductible from income within the framework of limited tax liability, whereas in the case of resident taxpayers national law permits their deduction from income up to a specific ceiling within the framework of unlimited tax liability?

               2.

               Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where, in addition to his compulsory contributions, the taxpayer makes additional (voluntary) contributions to the occupational pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?

               3.

               Does Article 49 TFEU in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude the national rule described in Question 1 in the case where the taxpayer, independently of his admission as a lawyer and his contributions to an occupational pension scheme, makes contributions to a voluntary private pension scheme and the Member State does not treat these as deductible from income although, under national law, future pension benefits payable in that Member State may be taxable even in the framework of limited tax liability?


title: Case C-591/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Decision 2011/678/EU — State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation of recovery — Non-performance)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-591/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Decision 2011/678/EU - State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals - Aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Non-performance))
   (2017/C 382/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, B. Stromsky, S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck and J. C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and L. Van den Hende and J. Charles, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)), and by failing to inform the European Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-552/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Motor vehicles — Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State — Registration tax — Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration — Conditions for refunding tax — Proportionality)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-552/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Motor vehicles - Rental or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of one Member State from a supplier established in another Member State - Registration tax - Payment of the full amount of tax at the time of registration - Conditions for refunding tax - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 382/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: L. Williams, E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, M. Collins SC, and S. Kingston and C. Daly, Barristers-at-Law)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing the obligation to pay in advance the full amount of the vehicle registration tax applicable in the event of permanent registration, whatever the actual limited duration of the proposed use in Ireland of a vehicle imported there, and although the temporary duration of the lease or rental has been determined precisely and is known in advance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

               2.

               Declares that, by failing to provide for the payment of interest when vehicle registration tax is refunded and by deducting the sum of EUR 500 by way of an administration charge from the amount of registration tax to be refunded, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

               3.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-589/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission (Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity — Application for registration — Refusal by the Commission — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2)(b) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 122 TFEU — Article 136 TFEU — Infringement)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission
   (Case C-589/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity - Application for registration - Refusal by the Commission - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 122 TFEU - Article 136 TFEU - Infringement))
   (2017/C 382/10)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros, and F. Moyse, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case C-473/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Repsol Butano, S.A. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-473/17)
   (2017/C 382/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Repsol Butano, S.A.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, (1) is a measure setting a maximum price for cylinders of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the following circumstances occur?

                           —

                           the measure is adopted as a general measure in relation to all consumers and for an indefinite period ‘while the conditions of competition on this market are not considered to be sufficient’,

                           —

                           the measure has already been in force for more than 28 years,

                           —

                           the measure may contribute to freezing the situation of limited competition by impeding the entry of new operators.

               2.

               In the light of the case-law laid down in Federutility, is a measure for the compulsory home delivery of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users or residents in areas that are difficult to access, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the circumstances listed in the previous question occur?

      (1)  Judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility and Others (C-265/08, EU:C:2010:205).


title: Case T-554/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/47

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB
   (Case T-554/17)
   (2017/C 382/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ramón González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) and Joan González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board has been lodged and, following the completion of the relevant legal procedures, uphold the present action and annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, thereby rendering the implementation of the decision and the actions taken as a result thereof devoid of effects. If the Court does not annul that decision, the applicants claim that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of their shares.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-575/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Algebris (UK) and Others v SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/47

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Algebris (UK) and Others v SRB
   (Case T-575/17)
   (2017/C 382/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States), Ronit Capital LLP (London) (represented by: T. Soames and J. Vandenbussche, lawyers, R. East, Solicitor, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. (1) in its entirety, or, in the alternative, Article 1 and/or 6 thereof;

               —

               order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed serious breaches of the principles of confidentiality and professional secrecy, contrary to Article 339 TFEU and Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2) and the case-law of the Court of Justice, thereby also failing to respect the applicants’ right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the European Commission’s application of Articles 14, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of Regulation No 806/2014.

                           —

                           In this regard, the applicants argue that the valuation of Banco Popular, which formed the basis for the resolution action taken under the Resolution Scheme, was not fair, prudent or reliable, and was inconsistent with the ‘no creditor worse off principle’; it did not therefore constitute accurate and reliable and consistent evidence on which to base the Resolution Scheme; and it was not capable of supporting the contested decision. Further and for the same reasons, the Resolution Scheme (and so the contested decision) was manifestly disproportionate by going beyond the measures necessary to secure the resolution objectives.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB expropriated the applicants’ property in breach of their fundamental rights as protected by general principles of Union law and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to ensure, in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the Court of Justice, that the applicants were afforded a right to be heard during the resolution process.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the resolution scheme was not lawfully endorsed by the Commission and so the contested decision was not lawfully brought into force.

                           —

                           In this connection it is argued that, before adopting its Decision (EU) 2017/1246 endorsing the Resolution Scheme, the European Commission failed to assess properly, or at all, the discretionary aspects of the Resolution Scheme. This constituted a breach of the Commission’s obligations under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and of the principles of the Meroni case-law of the Court of Justice. Accordingly, the SRB committed a manifest error of assessment and law by concluding that its decision adopting the Resolution Scheme could, or had, come into force; further, or alternatively, and in any event, the Resolution Scheme adopted by the contested decision did not lawfully come into force.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (notified under document C(2017) 4038), OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010.


title: Case C-469/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2017 — Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2017 — Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-469/17)
   (2017/C 382/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Funke Medien NRW GmbH

      Applicant and respondent: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Union law on the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1)) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC), and the exceptions or limitations to these rights (Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC) allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law?

               2.

               In which way are the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when ascertaining the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC to the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC)?

               3.

               Can the fundamental rights of freedom of information (second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Charter) or freedom of the media (Article 11(2) of the Charter) justify exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and publicly communicate their works, including the right to make works available to the public (Article 3(1) Directive 2001/29/EC), beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-513/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Administrative penalty proceedings against Josef Baumgartner
   (Case C-513/17)
   (2017/C 382/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Josef Baumgartner

      Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

      Question referred

   Is the first sentence of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty imposed on an undertaking or a manager of an undertaking pursuant to Paragraphs 30, 9 and 130 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (German Law on administrative offences, ‘OWiG’) for an administrative offence committed at the seat of the undertaking may be imposed only by the Member State in whose territory the undertaking has its seat? Or are other Member States also authorised to impose a penalty for the administrative offence when that offence has been detected on their territory?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).


title: Case C-245/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2017 — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 May 2017 — Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha
   (Case C-245/17)
   (2017/C 382/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González

      Respondent: Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha

      Questions referred

   The following questions arise:

               1.

               may the ending of the teaching period in the academic year be regarded as an objective ground justifying different treatment for the above-mentioned interim teaching staff as compared with established teaching staff?

               2.

               is the fact that interim civil-servant teaching staff whose employment is terminated at the end of the teaching period cannot take their leave on actual rest days, but are paid the remuneration corresponding thereto, compatible with the principle that such interim staff should not be discriminated against?

               3.

               is an abstract rule like that contained in the Thirteenth Additional Provision of Ley 5/2012, de 12 de julio, de Presupuestos Generales de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha para 2012 (Regional Law 5/2012 of 12 July 2012, on General Budgets of the Government of the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha for 2012), which, among other measures, for reasons of budgetary savings and the fulfilment of deficit objectives, suspended the application of an Agreement dated 10 March 1994 between the Ministry of Education and Science and the ANPE Trade Union, published by means of a Resolution of 15 March 1994 of the Directorate General of Personnel (BOMEC of 28 March 1994), so far as concerns paid leave in July and August for replacements of more than five-and-a-half months and for coverage of vacant posts, and required payment to be made to interim non-university teaching staff in respect of leave corresponding to 22 working days if the interim appointment was for a full academic year, or for the days corresponding thereto on a proportional basis, compatible with the principle that there should be no discrimination against such staff, who fall within the category of fixed-term workers?


title: Case T-572/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — UC v Parliament

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/31

         Action brought on 21 August 2017 — UC v Parliament
   (Case T-572/17)
   (2017/C 369/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded

         and consequently

               —

               annul the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the decision to award him only two merit points for that year;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 9 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 9 000, to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the applicant’s rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and Article 41 of the Charter.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-451/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Bester Papa — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa)
   (Case T-451/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Bester Papa - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 94/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Bester Papa as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case C-479/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2017 by Guardian Europe Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/4

         Appeal brought on 8 August 2017 by Guardian Europe Sàrl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union
   (Case C-479/17 P)
   (2017/C 369/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Guardian Europe Sàrl (represented by: C. O’Daly, Solicitor, F. Louis, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union, represented by (1) the Court of Justice of the European Union and (2) the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               set aside the judgment in so far as point 3 of the operative part rejected part of Guardian Europe’s claim for damages based on Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               2)

               determine that the Court itself can adjudicate on the merits of the appellant’s claims for damages and accordingly

                           a)

                           order the EU, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to compensate Guardian Europe for the damages caused as a result of the General Court’s failure to rule within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, namely the following amounts: (i) opportunity costs/loss of profit of € 1 388 000; (ii) additional guarantee costs of € 143 675,78; and (iii) non-pecuniary losses expressed as an appropriate percentage of the fine imposed on Guardian in the decision;

                           b)

                           order the EU, represented by the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to compensate Guardian for damages caused because of the Commission and the General Court’s infringement of the principle of equal treatment, namely the following amounts: (i) opportunity costs/loss of profit of € 7 712 000; and (ii) nonpecuniary losses expressed as an appropriate percentage of the fine imposed on Guardian in the Decision;

                           c)

                           award compensatory interest on the amounts in (a) (starting from 27 July 2010 up to the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal) and (b) (starting from 19 November 2010 up to the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal), at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat in the Member State (Luxembourg) where Guardian Europe is established;

                           d)

                           award default interest on the amounts in (a) and (b), starting from the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               3)

               in so far as relevant, as an alternative to any of (2)(a) to (d), refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of the action; and

               4)

               order the defendants to pay the appellant’s costs relating to this appeal and before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the TFEU and failed to apply the concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU law when it concluded that Guardian Europe did not suffer any loss of profits because of the General Court’s failure to rule within a reasonable time in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission;

               2)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the TFEU, failed to apply the concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU law and reached substantively inaccurate findings, this inaccuracy being apparent from the documents submitted to the General Court, when it held that Guardian Europe only incurred 82 % of the losses related to the guarantee costs payable during the period of the General Court’s unreasonable delay in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission;

               3)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the TFEU when it concluded that Guardian Europe did not suffer non-material damage because of the failure to rule within a reasonable time in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission;

               4)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the TFEU and failed to apply the concept of ‘undertaking’ in EU law when it ruled that the breach of the principle of equal treatment in Commission Decision No C(2007) 5791 final (1) — Flat glass, and in the General Court judgment in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission, did not cause Guardian Europe loss of profits;

               5)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340, second paragraph, of the TFEU when it ruled that the breach of the principle of equal treatment in Commission Decision No C(2007) 5791 final — Flat glass and in the General Court judgment in Case T-82/08, Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl v Commission, did not cause Guardian Europe non-material losses; and

               6)

               In its judgment the General Court violated Article 268 and Article 340 second paragraph of the TFEU when it held that only a judgment by a court of last instance — and not therefore the General Court — can trigger liability for damages for breach of EU law.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass).


title: Cases T-107/15 and T-347/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2017 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — List of the persons, entities and bodies acting in breach of the embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2017 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
   (Cases T-107/15 and T-347/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - List of the persons, entities and bodies acting in breach of the embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list))
   (2017/C 369/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented, in Case T-107/15, by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, K. Mittal, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and, in Case T-347/15, by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, K. Mittal and R. Blakeley)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, in Case T-107/15, initially by B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, and subsequently by B. Driessen and M. Veiga, Agents, and, in Case T-347/15, by B. Driessen, E. Dumitriu-Segnana and M. Veiga)

      Re:

   Application, in Case T-107/15, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP of 1 December 2014 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2014 L 346, p. 36) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 of 1 December 2014 implementing Article 9(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2014 L 346, p. 3), and, in so far as necessary, for a declaration that Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) is not applicable to the applicant and, in Case T-347/15, an application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2015 L 102, p. 43) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015, implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1183/2005 (OJ 2015 L 102, p. 10), and, in so far as necessary, for a declaration that Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1183/2005 is not applicable to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-107/15 and T-347/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-315/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Butterfly — Earlier EU word mark and national trade name Butterfly — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)
   (Case T-315/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Butterfly - Earlier EU word mark and national trade name Butterfly - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 221/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tamasu Butterfly Europa and adp Gauselmann.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-543/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/28

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-543/17)
   (2017/C 369/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement in its right of subrogation comprising:

                           —

                           62 646 209,04 euro and 3 582 381,15 American dollar (USD), the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) (except for any disbursements in USD, a rate equal to the LIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) applies) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative to (i), and if the Court finds that the EU is not subrogated to the rights of the Bank, payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02, and 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement comprising:

                           —

                           62 646 209,04 euro and 3 582 381,15 USD, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) (except for any disbursements in USD, a rate equal to the LIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) applies) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to either the EU or the Bank, as the case may be, for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) (except for any disbursements in USD, a rate equal to the LIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) applies) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), from the due date of each instalment to the date of eventual payment by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Syrian Healthcare Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-589/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/33

         Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-589/17)
   (2017/C 369/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement, comprising:

                           —

                           820 451,35 euro, being the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable legal costs, charges and expenses arising in connection with the conclusion and execution of the Loan Agreement, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-629/17: Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/39

         Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-629/17)
   (2017/C 369/53)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme Education for Competitiveness under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes Research and Development for Innovations under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and Technical Assistance under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 99(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 (1) laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, in conjunction with Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. The Commission imposed financial corrections for alleged irregularities in awards of public contracts which, however, constitute a procedure permitted by Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. The Commission wrongly takes the view that the exception to the rules for the award of public contracts under Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 concerning programme content applies only to contracting authorities which are broadcasters.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-487/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Verlezza and Others

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Verlezza and Others
   (Case C-487/17)
   (2017/C 374/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Alfonso Verlezza, Riccardo Traversa, Irene Cocco, Francesco Rando, Carmelina Scaglione, Francesco Rizzi, Antonio Giuliano, Enrico Giuliano, Refecta Srl, E. Giovi Srl, Vetreco Srl, SE.IN Srl

      Questions referred

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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

               4.

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

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

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


title: Case T-523/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/38

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-523/17)
   (2017/C 374/57)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Eleveté Invest Group S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and 19 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Román, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017;

               —

               Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability;

               —

               Declare the invalidity of the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants;

               —

               Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-465/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Scope — Article 2(4)(b) — Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction — Concept)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/3

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-465/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Scope - Article 2(4)(b) - Electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction - Concept))
   (2017/C 374/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the electricity used for the operation of turbo blowers intended to compress the air subsequently used in a blast furnace in the process of producing pig iron by chemical reduction of iron ore is not ‘electricity used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-559/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7(1) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Flight consisting of several legs — Concept of ‘distance’ to be taken into account)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann v Brussels Airlines SA/NV
   (Case C-559/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7(1) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Flight consisting of several legs - Concept of ‘distance’ to be taken into account))
   (2017/C 374/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

      Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates, in the case of air routes with connecting flights, only to the distance calculated between the first point of departure and the final destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-238/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Zimara — Earlier EU word mark FEMARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal — First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Meda (Zimara)
   (Case T-238/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Zimara - Earlier EU word mark FEMARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to decide on the entirety of the appeal - First sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Meda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 March 2015 (Case R 636/2014-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards ‘veterinary preparations’;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case C-510/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against ML

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava II (Slovakia) lodged on 22 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against ML
   (Case C-510/17)
   (2017/C 374/28)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Bratislava II

      Party to the main proceedings

   ML

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (‘Directive 2012/13/EU’), Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU, the right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right of defence under Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for the national authorities not to provide the detainee, throughout the period of detention, with the information referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU (in particular the right to access to the materials of the case), fully or completely, and not to permit the detainee to challenge that failure to provide information in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2012/13/EU? If the reply to that question should be in the negative, does that infringement of the law of the European Union affect, at any stage in the criminal proceedings, the legality of the deprivation of personal liberty when the detainee has been placed in pre-trial detention, in addition to the continuation of such pre-trial detention, taking account of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? For the purposes of answering the foregoing questions, is it relevant that the detainee has been charged with a serious crime, for which national legislation provides for imprisonment for a minimum term of 15 years?

               2.

               Is a provision of national law that does not permit the court to impose a term of imprisonment of less than 15 years, without any possibility of account being taken of the principle that the penalty should be specific to the offender and to the offence — such as Section 172(3) of the Slovak Criminal Code, which punishes illicit drug trafficking — compatible with Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA (2) of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, with the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with Articles 82 and 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the right to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with the principle of the proportionality of penalties under Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principles of proportionality, unity, effectiveness and the primacy of EU law? For the purposes of answering that question, is it relevant that the illicit drug trafficking was not committed by a criminal organisation within the meaning of EU law? Has the concept of criminal organisation for the purposes of Article 1 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (3) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime an autonomous meaning in the light of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the conditions for the uniform application of EU law?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8.

      (3)  OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42.


title: Case C-158/17 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/26

         Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-158/17 P)
   (2017/C 382/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. Koch, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 20 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-615/17: Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/50

         Action brought on 8 September 2017 — Ardigo and UO v Commission
   (Case T-615/17)
   (2017/C 382/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Nicola Ardigo (Lissone, Italy) and UO (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and rule that

                           —

                           the decisions confirming the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme are annulled;

                           —

                           the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Appointing Authority of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 in the calculation by that Authority of the deduction of the amount representing the increase in value of that capital between the date of the application for transfer and that of the actual transfer.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural measures, namely breaches by the Appointing Authority of its obligations to state reasons and to establish, through the GIPs, the mathematical formula by which it calculated the coefficients necessary for the conversion of the capital transferred into years of pensionable service.


title: Case T-562/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 27/09 and F 104/12)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Hanschmann v Europol
   (Case T-562/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Europol - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period - Compensation - Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal - Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 27/09 and F 104/12))
   (2017/C 382/51)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (Taucha, Germany) (represented by: W. Dammingh and N. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and I.Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of Europol of 29 July 2014 not to renew for an indefinite period the contract awarded to the applicant and to allocate a sum of EUR 10 000 to him on account of the length of the procedure and the prolongation of his state of uncertainty and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ingo Hanschmann to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-119/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-600/17: Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/48

         Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-600/17)
   (2017/C 382/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain), Grupo Nosa Terra 2000, SLU (Vigo), Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) and Industrias Lácteas Asturianas, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision endorsing the prior Decision of the Single Resolution Board, made on the same day, adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and which is implemented in Spain by the FROB, in that it sets a payment of EUR 0 in respect of the applicants’ rights in the Banco Popular.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-321/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 — OJ (*) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

text:
                  13.11.2017

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 382/27

            Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 —  OJ (*1) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
      (Case C-321/17)
      (2017/C 382/33)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:
          OJ (*1)

         Defendants: Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)
      By order of 5 October 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

         (*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.


title: Case C-474/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Sociedad de Transportes SA

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Sociedad de Transportes SA
   (Case C-474/17)
   (2017/C 382/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Sociedad de Transportes SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Control) (1) preclude a provision of national law of a Member State which has the effect of requiring bus undertakings operating regular services across a Schengen internal border to check their passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border in order to prevent foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit from being brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           Does the general statutory duty, or the administrative obligation directed at individual carriers, not to bring into federal territory foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit as required, which is properly discharged only if carriers check all passengers’ travel documents before crossing an internal border, constitute, or fall to be treated as, a check on persons at internal borders within the meaning of Article 22 of the Schengen Borders Code?

                           (b)

                           Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1 to be assessed by reference to Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, even though carriers do not exercise ‘police powers’ within the meaning of that provision and, moreover, do not formally enjoy any powers of public authority by virtue of the State-imposed obligation to carry out checks?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the affirmative, do the checks which carriers are required to carry out, taking into account the criteria laid down in the second sentence of Article 23(a) of the Schengen Borders Code, constitute an impermissible measure having an effect equivalent to border checks?

                           (d)

                           Is the imposition of the duties referred to in point 1, in so far as it concerns bus undertakings operating regular services, to be assessed by reference to Article 23(b) of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that the absence of border control at internal borders is not to affect the power of carriers to carry out security checks on persons at ports and airports? Does it follow from this that checks within the meaning of Question 1 are impermissible even when carried out other than at ports and airports if they do not constitute security checks and are not also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State?

               2.

               Do Articles 22 and 23 of the Schengen Borders Code permit provisions of national law under which, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with that duty, an order imposing a prohibition on pain of a penalty payment may be made against a bus undertaking in cases where the failure to carry out checks has enabled even foreign nationals not in possession of a passport or residence permit to be brought into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany?

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1.


title: Case C-646/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Trust — Trustees — Other legal persons — Meaning — Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State — Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer — Tax payable immediately — Justification — Proportionality)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-646/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Trust - Trustees - Other legal persons - Meaning - Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State - Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer - Tax payable immediately - Justification - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 382/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to freedom of establishment preclude, in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, where the trustees, under national law, are treated as a single and continuing body of persons, distinct from the persons who may from time to time be the trustees, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the taxation of unrealised gains in value of assets held in trust when the majority of the trustees transfer their residence to another Member State, but fails to permit payment of the tax payable to be deferred.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.