201808030262049762018/C 294/483992018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180618353511Case C-399/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN3510120180618EN0048351351Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt
   (Case C-399/18)2018/C 294/48Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Vereniging Gasopslag Nederland, TAQA Onshore BV, TAQA Piek Gas BV

      Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

      Question referred

   Is a uniform capacity tariff which is not differentiated according to the type of network user but is, rather, differentiated according to the contracted capacity, compatible with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (
         1
      ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (the Gas Regulation)?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36.


201808030522049962018/C 294/11902017CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806279911Case C-90/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Turbogás Produtora Energética SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Entity producing electricity for its own use — Small producers of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the production of electricity — Obligation to exempt)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN910120180627EN00119191Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Turbogás Produtora Energética SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-90/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Third subparagraph of Article 21(5) — Entity producing electricity for its own use — Small producers of electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the production of electricity — Obligation to exempt)’2018/C 294/11Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Turbogás Produtora Energética SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third subparagraph of Article 21(5) and Article 14(1)(a) 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 an entity such as the one in question in the main proceedings, which generates electricity for its own use, regardless of its size and irrespective of its main economic activity, must be regarded as a ‘distributor’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, whose consumption of electricity for the production of electricity, however, comes under the mandatory exemption provided for in Article 14(1)(a).
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-410/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 June 2018 — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 June 2018 — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
      (Case C-410/18)
      (2018/C 301/26)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal administratif

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nicolas Aubriet

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

         Question referred

      Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 3(5)(b) of the amended Law of 24 July 2014 on State financial aid for higher education studies, which does not take into account any other connecting factor, that is to say, the condition that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a period of at least five years in the course of a reference period of seven years at the time at which the application for financial aid is made, necessary in order to attain the objective put forward by the Luxembourg legislature, namely that of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree?


title: Case T-104/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA (Application for interim measures — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Recovery of the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/38

      Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
      (Case T-104/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
      (2018/C 301/50)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

         Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the REA’s decision to seek full repayment of the grant awarded for the Food-Watch project.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-16/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political party — Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded — Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee — Financial Regulation — Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Proportionality — Abuse of power)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament
      (Case T-16/17) (1)

      ((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Abuse of power))
      (2018/C 301/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-15 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-390/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA — Taking account in new criminal proceedings of a previous conviction in another Member State — Special procedure for recognition of a conviction in another Member State — Review and legal reclassification of the earlier decision — Principle of mutual recognition — Article 82(1) TFEU)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/2

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada
      (Case C-390/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Taking account in new criminal proceedings of a previous conviction in another Member State - Special procedure for recognition of a conviction in another Member State - Review and legal reclassification of the earlier decision - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 82(1) TFEU))
      (2018/C 301/02)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Szombathelyi Törvényszék

         Party to the main proceedings

      Dániel Bertold Lada

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 82 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the taking into account in a Member State, in new criminal proceedings brought against a person, of a final judgment previously handed down by a court of another Member State convicting that person of other offences being conditional on a special procedure for prior recognition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the courts of the first Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.


title: Case C-24/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — István Bán v KP 2000 kft., Edit Kovács (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental freedoms — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Purely internal situation — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the case in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/11

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — István Bán v KP 2000 kft., Edit Kovács
      (Case C-24/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Purely internal situation - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the case in the main proceedings - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/14)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: István Bán

         Defendants: KP 2000 kft., Edit Kovács

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Court of Districts II and III of Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 12 December 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-406/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — de Volksbank v SRB

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

      Action brought on 3 July 2018 — de Volksbank v SRB
      (Case T-406/18)
      (2018/C 311/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: de Volksbank NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: M. van Loopik, A. Kleinhout, A. ter Haar and T. Waterbolk, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/3);

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the abovementioned contested decision and declare Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (‘the delegated regulation’) (1) partly or fully inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

                  —

                  in any event, order the SRB to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         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 the breach of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, (2) Article 70(2) of Regulation 806/2014 (3) and Article 4(1) of the delegated regulation, by using incomparable data to determine the applicant’s net liabilities.

                              —

                              It follows from the text and objectives of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU and Article 70(2) of Regulation 806/2014 that the SRB should use data from the same point or period in time to calculate net liabilities in accordance with those provisions.

                              —

                              It follows from the text and objectives of Article 4(1) of the delegated regulation, in the light of Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation 806/2014, that the SRB must use comparable data in order to ensure a fair calculation of the contribution based on a bank’s risk profile.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative to the first plea, the breach of Article 103(2) and 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and of Article 290 TFEU because the delegated regulation, as applied by the SRB in the contested decision, exceeds the mandate provided to the European Commission, resulting in the inapplicability of the delegated regulation, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU.

                              —

                              Contrary to Article 290 TFEU, the delegated regulation supplements essential elements of Directive 2014/59/EU.

                              —

                              If Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 16(2) of the delegated regulation can only be interpreted as meaning that the SRB must use incomparable data, the delegated regulation is not in overall compliance with the text and objectives of Directive 2014/59/EU.

                              —

                              In so far as the delegated regulation sets rules on the calculation of the basic annual contribution, the delegated regulation exceeds the content of the mandate provided by Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality by not properly taking into account the applicant’s covered deposits.

                              —

                              The SRB’s calculation methodology is unsuitable to attain the objectives of Directive 2014/59/EU, Regulation 806/2014 and the delegated regulation.

                              —

                              The SRB’s calculation methodology also goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by the legislation.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty by not properly taking into account the applicant’s covered deposits.

                              —

                              The applicant could not have foreseen the SRB’s interpretation of the delegated regulation.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment by not properly taking into account the applicant’s covered deposits.

                              —

                              The applicant has to pay a significantly higher Single Resolution Fund contribution than other banks with the same, or a similar, size and risk profile.

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

         (2)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

         (3)  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 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case C-526/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 13 August 2018 — AA v Migrationsverket
      (Case C-526/18)
      (2018/C 381/17)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AA

         Defendant: Migrationsverket

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the provisions of the Schengen Agreement or the Schengen Borders Code preclude provisions of national law such as those set out in Paragraph 16 of the Lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (Law (2016:752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden) and which mean that a residence permit for study at secondary school level may be granted to a third-country national who is in a Member State, even if his or her identity is unclear or he or she is unable to provide prima facie evidence of his or her stated identity?

                  2.

                  If, in such a situation, the Schengen acquis is deemed to include a requirement that identity has been made clear or for which prima facie evidence has been provided, can the provisions of the Returns Directive (1) or any other EU legislation be interpreted as permitting an exception from that identity requirement?

         (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case T-494/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/29

      Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS
      (Case T-494/18)
      (2018/C 381/34)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  [Annul] the calculation slip dated 17 October 2017 which was sent to him by email on the same day by the EEAS Human Resources Department;

                  —

                  [Annul] the email of 16 January 2018 sent to him by the EEAS Human Resources Department confirming the absence of a legal basis to exceed the statutory ceiling for his son and daughter;

                  —

                  [Annul], in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 17 January 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 May 2018;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging illegality, since the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based, along with the Guidelines, infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereto.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds;

                              —

                              Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights;

                              —

                              Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education;

                              —

                              Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination;

                              —

                              The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure.


title: Case C-549/18: Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/17

      Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Romania
      (Case C-549/18)
      (2018/C 381/18)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Romania

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt, by 26 June 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of that directive;

                  —

                  order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty in the amount of EUR 21 974,40 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure transposition of Directive 2015/849/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

                  —

                  order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a lump sum, based on a daily amount of EUR 6 016,80, multiplied by the number of days which have elapsed from the day following the expiry of the deadline for transposition laid down in the directive in question until the day on which Romania fulfils its obligations or, if it fails to fulfil those obligations, until the day on which the Court delivers its judgment, subject to exceeding a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 887 000;

                  —

                  order Romania to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  The Member States had an obligation, under Article 67 of Directive 2015/849/EU, to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 26 June 2017. Since Romania has failed to communicate transposition measures, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

                  2.

                  In its application, the Commission claims that the Court should order Romania to pay a lump sum and periodic penalty payments pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU.

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73.


title: Case T-55/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission — Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Healy v Commission
      (Case T-55/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to length of service within the Commission - Non-admission to the assessment tests in a competition))
      (2018/C 381/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board for internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the applicant’s candidature.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr John Morrison Healy to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case T-521/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/34

      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)
      (Case T-521/18)
      (2018/C 392/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC BROKERAGE — European Union trade mark No 3 812 195

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2186/2014-5.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-732/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/14

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Sberbank of Russia v Council
      (Case T-732/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))
      (2018/C 392/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose QC, M. Lester QC, J.-A. Fearns and P. Crowther, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J.P. Hix, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci, L. Havas and T. Scharf, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65) and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1148 of 28 June 2017 (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 35), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sberbank of Russia OAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case T-522/18: Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/35

      Action brought on 28 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)
      (Case T-522/18)
      (2018/C 392/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AUREL BGC — Application for registration No 11 092 707

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2194/2014-5.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the application should be rejected for specific services in classes 35 and 36;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-734/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council
      (Case T-734/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))
      (2018/C 392/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and M. Lester QC)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders VTB Bank PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case T-618/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Action for annulment — Association set up after the adoption of the contested measure — Lack of direct concern — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/70

      Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB
      (Case T-618/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Action for annulment - Association set up after the adoption of the contested measure - Lack of direct concern - Manifestly inadmissible)
      (2018/C 427/93)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Arredondo Díaz, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Central Bank (represented by: R. Ugena Torrejon and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented initially by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, L. Baudenbacher and S. Ianc, and subsequently by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Banco Santander, SA, Banco Popular Español, SA, the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission and Chavela Inmuebles, SL.

                  3.

                  Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular shall pay the costs with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

                  4.

                  Banco Santander, Banco Popular Español, the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission and Chavela Inmuebles shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-387/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Terna v Commission (Financial aid — Projects of common interest in the field of trans-European energy networks — Determination of the final amount of the financial aid — Audit report identifying irregularities — Ineligible costs — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Terna v Commission
      (Case T-387/16) (1)

      ((Financial aid - Projects of common interest in the field of trans-European energy networks - Determination of the final amount of the financial aid - Audit report identifying irregularities - Ineligible costs - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 436/49)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Degni, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, L. Di Paolo, A. Tokár and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letters of 6 July 2015, 23 May and 14 June 2016 of the Commission relating to certain costs incurred in the context of two projects in the field of trans-European energy networks (Projects 209-E255/09-ENER/09/TEN-E-S 12.564583 and 2007-E221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S 07.91403) following the grant of financial aid by the Commission to the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case T-788/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MicroSepar — Earlier EU figurative mark SeparSolidaria — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar)
      (Case T-788/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MicroSepar - Earlier EU figurative mark SeparSolidaria - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Andreas Szabados (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Wobst, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (Barcelona, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2017 (Case R 2420/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between M. Andreas Szabados and Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Andreas Szabados to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-518/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials and members of the contractual staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 — Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country — Objection of illegality — Purpose of annual leave)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2018 — Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission
      (Case T-518/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials and members of the contractual staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014 - Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - New provisions relating to annual leave applicable to officials posted in a third country - Objection of illegality - Purpose of annual leave))
      (2019/C 44/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Francisco Carreras Sequeros (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and the five other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and E. Taneva, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents),

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave of the applicants as from 2014.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decisions reducing the number of days of annual leave for 2014 of Mr Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the European Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment;

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Francisco Carreras Sequeros and the other officials or members of staff of the Commission whose names are annexed to the judgment, and

                  3.

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

         (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-88/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-98/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (MULTIFIT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/56

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)
      (Case T-98/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 82/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino, D. Walicka, M. Fischer and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 846/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign MULTIFIT as a European Union trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case C-430/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Distance contracts — Article 6(1)(h) — Obligation to provide information on the right of withdrawal — Article 8(4) — Contract concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information — Meaning of ‘limited space or time to display the information’ — Brochure inserted in a periodical — Mail order coupon containing a hyperlink referring to information on the right of withdrawal)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/13

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV
      (Case C-430/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Distance contracts - Article 6(1)(h) - Obligation to provide information on the right of withdrawal - Article 8(4) - Contract concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information - Meaning of ‘limited space or time to display the information’ - Brochure inserted in a periodical - Mail order coupon containing a hyperlink referring to information on the right of withdrawal))
      (2019/C 93/16)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

         Operative part of the judgment

      The assessment of whether, in a specific case, the means of communication allows limited space or time to display the information, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be carried out having regard to all of the technical features of the trader’s marketing communication. In that regard, it falls to the national court to ascertain whether, having regard to the space and time occupied by the communication and the minimum size of the typeface which is appropriate for the average consumer targeted by that communication, all the information set out in Article 6(1) of that directive may objectively be displayed within that communication.
      Article 6(1)(h) and Article 8(4) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation where the contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information, and where a right of withdrawal exists, the trader is required to provide the consumer, on the means of communication in question and before the conclusion of the contract, with information regarding the conditions, time limit and procedures for exercising that right. In such a situation, that trader must provide the consumer with the model withdrawal form, as provided for in Annex I(B) to that directive, by another source in plain and intelligible language.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-881/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — HJ v EMA (Civil service — Temporary agents — Partial inadmissibility — Application for an injunction — Access of officials to their personal file — Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Personal file made accessible to all members of staff of the EMA — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies — Liability — Non-material harm)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2019 — HJ v EMA
      (Case T-881/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Temporary agents - Partial inadmissibility - Application for an injunction - Access of officials to their personal file - Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Personal file made accessible to all members of staff of the EMA - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies - Liability - Non-material harm))
      (2019/C 93/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: I. Ratescu and F. Cooney, acting as Agents, and S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation in respect of the non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the disclosure of his personal file to all members of staff of the EMA and, second, the withdrawal of two documents from that file.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to pay HJ the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the EMA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by HJ.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-31/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/50

      Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA
      (Case T-31/19)
      (2019/C 103/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included;

                  —

                  if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision;

                  —

                  order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  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.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-811/17: Action brought on 12 December 2017 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)

text:
               12.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/38

         Action brought on 12 December 2017 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)
   (Case T-811/17)
   (2018/C 052/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Classic Media AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘CLASSIC DRIVER’ — International Registration No 1 108 587

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 in Case R 59/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition with costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/13

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-14/17)
   (2018/C 67/13)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/10

         Action brought on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-11/17)
   (2018/C 67/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that act.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, as referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/14

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-15/17)
   (2018/C 67/14)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers, as referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-380/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 73 — Taxable amount — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Exclusion from that scheme of sales to taxable undertakings — Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period — Incompatibility)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-380/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 73 - Taxable amount - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Exclusion from that scheme of sales to taxable undertakings - Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period - Incompatibility))
   (2018/C 123/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and M. Wasmeier, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and B. Koopman, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for value added tax on an overall basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-210/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE TURBO — Earlier EU figurative mark TURBO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)
   (Case T-210/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE TURBO - Earlier EU figurative mark TURBO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 123/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and International Gaming Projects.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 February 2017 (Case R 119/2016-4);

               2)

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by International Gaming Projects Ltd;

               3)

               Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case T-222/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MAGELLAN — Genuine use — Burden of proof — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Oral proceedings — Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Hansen Medical v EUIPO — Covidien (MAGELLAN)
   (Case T-222/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MAGELLAN - Genuine use - Burden of proof - Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Oral proceedings - Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 134/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hansen Medical, Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Covidien AG (Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Ingerl and D. Wiedemann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 (Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Hansen Medical and Covidien.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hansen Medical, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-104/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/36

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA
   (Case T-104/18)
   (2018/C 134/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (representatives: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible;

               —

               Uphold the pleas in law put forward in that application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision stating that the repayment of the amounts corresponding to the tasks performed by TECNALIA is not required;

               —

               Order the REA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application has been brought against the outcome of the inter partes financial recovery procedure in respect of the project FP7-SME-2013-605879-FOODWATCH grant agreement. The decision to terminate the FoodWatch grant agreement has its origin in the alleged failure to inform the applicant of the existence of the BreadGuard Project which, in the REA’s view, bore strong similarities to the FoodWatch project in terms of objectives, working methods and expected results.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law, alleging a failure to give reasons for the contested decision because of the failure to take into account the exculpatory evidence highlighted by TECNALIA during the inter partes investigation procedure.

               2.

               The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the content of Annex II to the FoodWatch grant agreement, on account of the defendant’s failure to disclose the identity of the independent experts who endorsed the expert reports on which the contested decision was founded, thereby preventing TECNALIA from challenging those reports.

               3.

               The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of fault, on account of the defendant’s failure to take into account the degree of TECNALIA’s involvement in the commission of the facts alleged.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality, given the correct implementation of the projects and the absence, on TECNALIA’s part, of infringement of, or failure to fulfil, the commitments contracted.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, on account of the failure to take into account the degree of fault on the part of each of the participants in the conduct alleged.


title: Case T-766/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-766/16 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Public guarantee granted by a public body - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application for a stay of proceedings - Lack of urgency))
   (2018/C 182/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The order of 11 November 2016, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (T-766/16 R), is set aside.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-161/18: Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Braesch and Others v Commission

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/31

         Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Braesch and Others v Commission
   (Case T-161/18)
   (2018/C 190/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Anthony Braesch (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Trinity Investments DAC (Dublin, Ireland), Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands), Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman), Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (Grand Cayman) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Champsaur, G. Faella, and L. Prosperetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017, (1) in Case SA.47677 (2017/N);

               —

               in the alternative, annul the said decision insofar as it concerns the treatment of the FRESH (2) Instruments;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter;

               —

               take any other measures the Court considers appropriate, including measures of organisation of procedure under Articles 89(3) and/or measures of inquiry under Article 91(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully endorsed burden sharing measures in the context of a precautionary recapitalisation, in violation of Articles 18 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (failure to give reasons). (3)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully required the cancellation of the FRESH contracts (manifest error of law and fact in departing from the 2013 Banking Communication; (4) infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment; failure to give reasons).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision treats the FRESH holders in a discriminatory way (violation of the right to equal treatment, protected under Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’) and Article 14 and Protocol 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’); manifest error of assessment; failure to give reasons).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the FRESH holders’ property rights (violation of property rights protected under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR; failure to give reasons).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation procedure, notwithstanding the fact that there were serious doubts about the compatibility of the measures with EU law (violation of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU; violation of Article 4(3) and (4) of Council Regulation 2015/1589; (5) manifest error of assessment; failure to give reasons).

      (1)  OJ 2018 C 40, p. 7.

      (2)  Floating Rate Equity-linked Subordinated Hybrid (a form of bond).

      (3)  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 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

      (4)  Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) (OJ 2013 C 216, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-206/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen, intervening party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/19

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen, intervening party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   (Case C-206/17) (1)

   (2018/C 190/30)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


201806150551955122018/C 231/542872018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504424211Case T-287/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4210120180504EN0054421421Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct)
   (Case T-287/18)2018/C 231/54Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora, S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Nature’s Variety Instinct — Application for registration No 14 290 647

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2018 in Case R 1659/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO and –if applicable- the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

            —

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


201806150511955362018/C 231/562902018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504434422Case T-290/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Agmin Italy v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4320120180504EN0056432442Action brought on 4 May 2018 — Agmin Italy v Commission
   (Case T-290/18)2018/C 231/56Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Agmin Italy SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: F. Guardascione, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            As a preliminary matter, find and declare the nullity and/or the invalidity and/or the lack of effect and/or the non-existence of (i) the contested decision on the grounds of unlawfulness, infringement of the principle of separation of investigative powers and decision-making powers, infringement of the rights of the defence, abuse of power in the form of distortion and erroneous assessment of the facts, manifest illogicality and inconsistency, and on the grounds of failure to conduct a proper investigation and unequal treatment, and (ii) for all the reasons set out above, any other earlier or subsequent act which is in any way related and/or connected to the act referred to above, with all the legal consequences thus arising;

            —

            In any event, annul Decision DG NEAR of 7 March 2018 (ARES — 2018 — 1288022) notified on 9 March 2018, in so far as it is contested in the present case and, consequently, annul the related penalties;

            —

            In the alternative, order the setting aside or reduction of the penalty imposed on Agmin on the ground that it is excessive and disproportionate to Agmin’s actual conduct;

            —

            In the further alternative, find that the facts described are such as to allow the rehabilitation of Agmin pursuant to Article 106(9) of Regulation No 966/2012;

            —

            Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the European Commission’s Decision of 7 March 2018 (ARES — 2018 — 1288022), excluding the applicant from participating in procurement and grant award procedures financed by the general budget of the European Union and by the European Development Fund for the maximum period of three years laid down in Article 106(14)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012 (
         1
      ) and ordering publication [of information relating to that exclusion] on the Commission’s website, following a failure to deliver the goods ordered (Lots 9 and 11) within the timeframes laid down in Supply Contract ENPI/2014/351-804, and a failure to replace the guarantee (pre-financing guarantee of EUR 89430,71) submitted by Agmin to the Contracting Authority on 19 November 2014. That guarantee was issued by a body which, according to information received from the Bank of Italy, was authorised to issue guarantees in favour of banks and financial institutions authorised to issue credit, but not in favour of other bodies or entities, such as the Contracting Authority.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging abuse of power, in particular in the form of infringement of the principle of separation of investigative powers and decision-making powers, infringement of the rights of the defence, manifest illogicality, and a failure to state reasons.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging infringement and/or misapplication of the ‘Principles of European Contract Law 2002’, applicable under Article 41 of the General Conditions of the Contract; and

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that the penalty should be proportionate pursuant to Article 5 TEU, in that the European Commission decided to impose on Agmin the maximum penalty of three years.

      The applicant claims in particular that the contested decision infringes its rights in that the Commission, in making that decision, did not give proper consideration to the fact that the Contracting Authority was principally, or in the alternative, jointly responsible for the failed delivery because that authority, arbitrarily and unjustifiably, refused to replace the supplier of the goods with another producer that had indicated its availability to supply goods of an equivalent or higher quality to that indicated in the technical specifications set out in the contract notice.
   (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


201806150731955382018/C 231/287122016TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516232422Case T-712/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Air transport market — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments — Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2320120180516EN0028232242Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-712/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Competition — Concentrations — Air transport market — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments — Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers)’2018/C 231/28Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, H. Leupold and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for a waiver of certain commitments rendered binding by the Commission Decision of 4 July 2005 approving the merger in Case COMP/M.3770 –– Lufthansa/Swiss.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls, in so far as it concerns the Zurich-Stockholm route, Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 rejecting Deutsche Lufthansa AG’s request for a waiver of certain commitments rendered binding by the Commission decision of 4 July 2005 approving the merger in Case COMP/M.3770 –– Lufthansa/Swiss;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


201806150811955072018/C 231/432562018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424343521Case T-256/18: Action brought on 24 April 2018 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3410120180424EN0043341352Action brought on 24 April 2018 — Arezzo Indústria e Comércio v EUIPO (SCHUTZ)
   (Case T-256/18)2018/C 231/43Language of the case: Portuguese
      Parties

      Applicant: Arezzo Indústria e Comércio SA (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SCHUTZ’ — Application for registration No 15 723 265

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2018 in Case R 661/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

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


201806150781955052018/C 231/603012018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180513484921Case T-301/18: Action brought on 13 May 2018 — Yanukovych v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4810120180513EN0060481492Action brought on 13 May 2018 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-301/18)2018/C 231/60Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 (
                  1
               ) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 (
                  2
               ), insofar as they concern the Applicant; and

            —

            order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. The Council of the European Union has failed to properly take into account and consider all of the material provided to it while also being highly selective in the material that it has taken into account. Arguments in support of this plea include that: the Applicant is merely the subject of pre-trial investigations which have stagnated and are clearly not sufficient to satisfy the relevant criterion; and the materials upon which the Council has based its decision to maintain the Applicant’s name on the list are wholly inadequate, inconsistent, false and are not supported by any evidence.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the Applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the Applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error. Moreover the reasons given in relation to the first plea apply equally to the second plea.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The Council has failed to identify the actual and specific reasons for the Applicant’s designation. The ‘statement of reasons’ adopted in the Sixth Amending Decision and Sixth Amending Regulation for including the Applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and inadequately particularised.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the Applicant prior to the re-designation, and the Applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances. At no stage has the Council/Applicant been provided with serious, credible or concrete evidence to justify the imposition of restrictive measures.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the Sixth Amending Instruments. Arguments in support of the plea include the following: (a) The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Sixth Amending Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives are merely vague assertions; (ii) The basis lacks any sufficient connection to the proper standard of judicial review required in the present circumstances; and (iii) the imposition of restrictive supports and legitimises the conduct of the new regime in Ukraine that is itself undermining due process and the rule of law and is systematically violating human rights; (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V of TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the Applicant.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Sixth Amending Instruments was essentially to try to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine (so that Ukraine proceeds with closer ties with the European Union), and not the purposes/rationales stated on the face of the Sixth Amending Instruments. The designation criteria represent an extraordinary and wholesale delegation of power consistent with the Council’s purpose.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because inter alia: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the Applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; and (ii) it is neither necessary nor appropriate to freeze all the Applicant’s assets since the Ukraine authorities have now quantified the value of the losses allegedly being pursued in underlying criminal cases against the Applicant.

      (
         1
      )	Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48).
   (
         2
      )	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5).