title: Case T-703/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Early termination — Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS — Terms of notice — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC
   (Case T-703/16 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Early termination - Article 47(b)(ii) of the CEOS - Terms of notice - Liability - Non-material damage))
   (2018/C 042/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant arising from the decision of the director of the ECDC, communicated to him on 24 February 2012, to terminate early his contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to pay CJ, in respect of non-material damage, the sum of EUR 2 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case F-161/12;

               3.

               Orders CJ and the ECDC to bear their own costs in the original proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-161/12, the appeal proceedings in Case T-370/15 P and the present proceedings on referral.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-627/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 8 November 2017 — ZSE Energia, a.s. v RG

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovakia) lodged on 8 November 2017 — ZSE Energia, a.s. v RG
   (Case C-627/17)
   (2018/C 042/06)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ZSE Energia, a.s.

      Defendant: RG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘one of the parties’ used in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 (1) establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (‘Regulation No 861/2007’) be interpreted as also including the ‘intervener’, that is, an individual participating in the proceedings who is neither the claimant (applicant) nor the respondent (defendant), but who intervenes in the proceedings in order to support the arguments put forward by the claimant (applicant) or the respondent (defendant)?

               2.

               In the event that the ‘intervener’ is not to be regarded as a ‘party’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 861/2007:
               Does a procedure commenced using Form A of [Annex I] to Regulation No 861/2007 between a claimant (applicant) and a respondent (defendant) fall within the scope of Regulation No 861/2007 under Article 2(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, if those parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the Member State in which the court or tribunal seised is situated, and only the ‘intervener’ is domiciled in a different Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 1.


title: Case T-798/17: Action brought on 8 December 2017 — De Masi and Varoufakis v ECB

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/39

         Action brought on 8 December 2017 — De Masi and Varoufakis v ECB
   (Case T-798/17)
   (2018/C 042/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Fabio De Masi (Hamburg, Germany) and Yanis Varoufakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, notified by letter of 16 October 2017, by which the applicants’ application for access to the European Central Bank document ‘Responses to questions concerning the interpretation of Article 14.4 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’ of 23 April 2015 was rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Incorrect application of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (1)

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the publication of the legal opinion in question would not undermine the defendant’s legal advice and that there is an overriding public interest in its disclosure. Furthermore, there was a lack of consideration and a failure to state adequate reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Incorrect application of Article 4(3) of Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3)

                           —

                           Publication of the legal opinion in question would not undermine its internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the European Central Bank, or for exchanges of views between the European Central Bank and national central banks.

      (1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).


title: Case T-164/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — External provision of information technology services to the Parliament and other institutions and bodies of the EU — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament
   (Case T-164/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - External provision of information technology services to the Parliament and other institutions and bodies of the EU - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))
   (2018/C 042/15)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by: M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: B. Simon, L. Darie and I. Anagnostopoulou, and subsequently by: L. Darie, Z. Nagy and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament, sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank their bid in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’ and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank the bid of European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-799/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Scania and Others v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/40

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Scania and Others v Commission
   (Case T-799/17)
   (2018/C 042/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Scania AB (Södertälje, Sweden), Scania CV AB (Södertälje) and Scania Deutschland GmbH (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Arts, F. Miotto, C. Pommiès, K. Schillemans, C. Langenius, L. Ulrichs and P. Hammarskiöld, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 88(1) and Article 89(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure requesting the Commission to produce the written submissions of DAF and Iveco to the statement of objections;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 27 September 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39824 — Trucks)(the contested decision);

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicants under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003;

               —

               in any event, substitute its own appraisal for the Commission’s as regards the amount of the fine and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicants under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the Applicants’ rights of defence as deriving from Article 48(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Articles 27(1) and 27(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the duty of EU institutions to conduct an impartial investigation, as deriving from Article 41(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the principle of the presumption of innocence, as laid down in Article 48(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 27(1) and 27(2) of Regulation 1/2003, and Article 48(2) of the Charter in denying Scania access to potential new exculpatory evidence contained in DAF’s and Iveco’s replies to the Statement of Objections.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by finding that the exchanges of information in the Test & Drive circle constitute an infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 296 TFEU because it provides an inconsistent reasoning in relation to the alleged agreement or concerted practice on the introduction on the market of emission technologies, as well as misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement in finding that the Applicants have entered into an agreement or concerted practice on the timing of the introduction on the market of emission technologies.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by incorrectly characterising the information exchange within the German circle as a ‘by object’ infringement.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement because, in holding the geographic scope of the infringement concerning the German circle to be EEA-wide, it commits a manifest error in the assessment of the facts and in their legal characterisation.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement because, in holding that the identified behaviour amounts to a single and continuous infringement and in determining that the Applicants are liable in that regard, it commits a manifest error in the assessment of the facts and in their legal characterisation.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision misapplies Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, as well as Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003, by imposing a fine in relation to conduct that is time-barred and, in any event, by not taking into account that the conduct was not continuous.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment with respect to the level of the fine, and the Court should, in any event, reduce the amount of the fine by application of Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003.


title: Case T-828/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Consejo Regulador ‘Torta del Casar’ v EUIPO — Consejo Regulador ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA — Protection of the designation of origin ‘Torta del Casar’ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Consejo Regulador ‘Torta del Casar’ v EUIPO — Consejo Regulador ‘Queso de La Serena’ (QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA)
   (Case T-828/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark QUESO Y TORTA DE LA SERENA - Protection of the designation of origin ‘Torta del Casar’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 042/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’ (Casar de Cáceres, Spain) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

      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: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’ (Castuera, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2573/2014–4), concerning opposition proceedings between Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’ and Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida ‘Queso de La Serena’.

      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 26 September 2016 (Case R 2573/2014–4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen ‘Torta del Casar’.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-314/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Greece v Commission (State aid — Aid in favour of an undertaking which has concluded a concession to operate container terminals in the Port of Piraeus — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Right of defence — Duty to give reasons — Concept of State aid — Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas — Incentive effect of the aid — Necessity of the aid — Determination of the amount of aid)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-314/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid in favour of an undertaking which has concluded a concession to operate container terminals in the Port of Piraeus - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Right of defence - Duty to give reasons - Concept of State aid - Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas - Incentive effect of the aid - Necessity of the aid - Determination of the amount of aid))
   (2018/C 042/16)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and L. Kotroni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, agents acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1827 of 23 March 2015, in relation to the State aid SA.28876 (12/C) (ex CP 202/2009) which Greece granted to the undertakings Piraeus Container Terminal SA and Cosco Pacific Ltd (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 93)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case C-633/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2017 — Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 10 November 2017 — Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn
   (Case C-633/17)
   (2018/C 042/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn

      Authorities concerned: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann von Linz-Land

      Interveners: Mag. Jungwirth and Mag. Fabian OHG and others, Gunhild Mayr, Mag. Übermaßer KG

      Question referred

   Is a combination of procedural system and court structure such as established in Austria, for jurisdiction in matters of public law, in Articles 133(4) and 144(1) of the Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law) in conjunction with Paragraphs 41, 42 and 63 of the Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz (Law on the Supreme Administrative Court), on the one hand, and with Paragraph 87 of the Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz (Law on the Constitutional Court), on the other hand —
   namely:
   in either case simple annulment (Kassation) by the highest instance court, which in effect is not the same as resolving the case on the merits but is merely equivalent to a formal referral back to the lower instance court, i.e.

               1)

               setting aside the contested decision,

               2)

               with an obligation on the part of the lower instance court to reach a new resolution of the case on the merits, with

               3)

               an obligation to be bound by the legal opinion of the highest instances,

         whereby this binding effect is generally ordered by statute, i.e. in particular also for those situations in which it is not guaranteed ex lege that the higher courts, in proceedings meeting in every respect the requirements of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (but rather characterised in particular by

               1)

               the prohibition on making new claims and defences or presenting new facts and evidence (Neuerungsverbot),

               2)

               the binding nature of the facts of the case found by the lower court,

               3)

               reference to the relevant factual and legal situation existing at the time of the lower court’s decision, and

               4)

               the scope of the power to rule being limited simply to fundamental legal questions (Supreme Administrative Court), on the one hand, and violations of the sphere of fundamental rights (Constitutional Court) on the other),

         have conducted both an autonomous assessment of consistency and proportionality and an assessment based on the current factual situation

               —

               compatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed in Article 49 TFEU and the freedom of services guaranteed in Article 56 TFEU?’


title: Case T-912/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark RROFA — Prior EU word mark ROFA — 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:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)
   (Case T-912/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark RROFA - Prior EU word mark ROFA - 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 042/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and M.M. Baldares, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: N. Köster, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2392/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mobotec and RRTec.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders RRTec sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-800/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/41

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)
   (Case T-800/17)
   (2018/C 042/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, A. Bender and J. Clayton-Chen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enesan AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 112 642 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FIGHT LIFE’

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 36/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-4/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council (Civil service — Civil servants — Automatic retirement — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of the invalidity — Classification of the claim — Reasonable period — Irregularity of the prior administrative procedure — Inadmissibility — Liability)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-4/17) (1)

   ((Civil service - Civil servants - Automatic retirement - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of the invalidity - Classification of the claim - Reasonable period - Irregularity of the prior administrative procedure - Inadmissibility - Liability))
   (2018/C 042/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Council decision of 4 March 2016 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant’s invalidity and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ángel Coedo Suárez to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-801/17: Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/42

         Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)
   (Case T-801/17)
   (2018/C 042/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de’ — Application for registration No 15 073 381

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 524/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-497/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Oltis Group v Commission (Research and development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020 (Horizon 2020) — Stimulation and coordination of EU research and innovation investments in the rail sector — Establishment of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking — Associate membership of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking — Call for expressions of interest — Rejection of candidature — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Oltis Group v Commission
   (Case T-497/15) (1)

   ((Research and development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020 (Horizon 2020) - Stimulation and coordination of EU research and innovation investments in the rail sector - Establishment of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking - Associate membership of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking - Call for expressions of interest - Rejection of candidature - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers))
   (2018/C 042/17)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Oltis Group a.s. (Olomouc, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Konečný, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares (2015) 2691017 of 26 June 2015 concerning the request for a review of the rejection of the applicant’s application to become an associate member of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Oltis Group a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case T-802/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/43

         Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)
   (Case T-802/17)
   (2018/C 042/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED’ — Application for registration No 15 073 398

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 525/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-640/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 16 November 2017 — Luís Manuel dos Santos v Fazenda Pública

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 16 November 2017 — Luís Manuel dos Santos v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-640/17)
   (2018/C 042/08)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luís Manuel dos Santos

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Question referred

   Does the principle of free movement of goods between Member States, set out in Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), preclude a rule of national law [Article 2(1)(b) of the CIUC (1)], interpreted as meaning that annual road tax should not take into account the date of first registration when it was allocated in another Member State and should only be based on the date of registration in Portugal, if that interpretation results in higher taxation of vehicles imported from another Member State?

      (1)  Código do Imposto Único de Circulação (Annual Road Tax Code)


title: Case T-803/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/43

         Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)
   (Case T-803/17)
   (2018/C 042/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ORIGINAL excellent dermatest’ — Application for registration No 15 073 364

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 526/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-661/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 27 November 2017 — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 27 November 2017 — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland
   (Case C-661/17)
   (2018/C 042/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M.A., S.A., A.Z.

      Defendants: International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland

      Questions referred

               1)

               When dealing with transfer of a protection applicant under regulation 604/2013 (1) to the UK, is a national decision-maker, in considering any issues arising in relation to the discretion under art. 17 and/or any issues of protection of fundamental rights in the UK, required to disregard circumstances as they stand at the time of such consideration in relation to the proposed withdrawal of the UK from the EU?

               2)

               Does the concept of the ‘determining member state’ in regulation 6[0]4/2013 include the role of the member state in exercising the power recognised or conferred by art. 17 of the regulation?

               3)

               Do the functions of a member state [under] art. 6 of regulation 604/2013 include the power recognised or conferred by art. 17 of the regulation?

               4)

               Does the concept of an effective remedy apply to a first instance decision under art. 17 of regulation 604/2013 such that an appeal or equivalent remedy must be made available against such a decision and/or such that national legislation providing for an appellate procedure against a first instance decision under the regulation should be construed as encompassing an appeal from a decision under art. 17?

               5)

               Does art. 20(3) of regulation 604/2013 have the effect that in the absence of any evidence to displace a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child to treat his or her situation as indissociable from that of the parents, the national decision maker is not required to consider such best interests separately from the parents as a discrete issue or as a starting point for consideration of whether the transfer should be take place?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 31).


title: Case T-804/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/44

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)
   (Case T-804/17)
   (2018/C 042/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 15 625 437

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 in Case R 1887/2016-1

      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)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-692/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Duty to provide reasons — Contractual liability — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HTTS v Council
   (Case T-692/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Duty to provide reasons - Contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
   (2018/C 042/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and R. Tricot, and subsequently by R. Tricot and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of its name, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25) in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) and, secondly, by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-808/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Pethke v EUIPO

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/44

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Pethke v EUIPO
   (Case T-808/17)
   (2018/C 042/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ralph Pethke (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report in the version which was notified to him on 10 April 2017;

               —

               annul, as relevant, the Decision of the Management Board of EUIPO on the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union of 18 October 2017;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   First plea in law: Error of appraisal on the part of the applicant’s immediate superior

               —

               The applicant claims that his reporting officer undertook no independent assessment or critical appraisal of the Executive Directive’s contribution to the report regarding the applicant’s performance during the part of the period of assessment from 1 January 2016 to 17 October 2016 and thereby infringed Commission Decision No C(2013) 8985 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations and EUIPO’s staff assessment instructions.

         Second and third plea in law: Appeal body’s lack of jurisdiction to decide on the complaint and lack of impartiality

               —

               The Executive Director cannot be regarded as an independent appeal body as far as concerns the applicant’s appraisal report procedure since the Executive Directive played a decisive role in the drawing up of that report. EUIPO’s staff assessment instructions provide that, if the Executive Director acts as reporting officer, the appeal assessor is to be a committee.

         Fourth plea in law: Arbitrary termination of the complaint dialogue

               —

               An ordinary complaint dialogue was not held, in particular due to an arbitrary termination of the dialogue by the Executive Director, which constitutes an infringement of the rules of the complaints procedure, namely the Commission Decision and the staff assessment instructions adopted by EUIPO pursuant to that decision. There was no effective administrative pre-contentious legal protection.

         Fifth plea in law: Failure to state reasons in the appraisal report

               —

               The Executive Director’s contribution, and therefore also the 2016 appraisal report itself, substantially fails to state reasons, which, to a certain degree, makes it impossible for applicant to evaluate it. The Executive Director’s appraisal of the applicant’s performance lacks substance. The appraisal is in large part implausible. The applicant’s performance as manager of the Operations Department was assessed as significantly poorer than, almost without exception, all previous appraisals of the applicant. The reasons given do not meet the resulting higher standard required.

         Sixth plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment

               —

               There are manifest errors of assessment in the 2016 appraisal report containing the Executive Director’s contribution in that it provides incomplete and arbitrarily selected performance data. The assessment of the material facts is completely implausible.

               —

               The appraisal report itself contains no analysis of the figures relating to the applicant’s performance as far as concerns the period in question, since the applicant’s reporting officer did not expressly analyse those figures in the appraisal report.

               —

               The Executive Director’s contribution to the appraisal report, and therefore necessarily the appraisal report itself, contains untruths and provides incomplete and unilaterally-determined biased performance data. The Executive Director relies on arbitrary and irrelevant bases of assessment and generally does not refer to the key indicators set out in the objectives. The Executive Director’s contribution distorts the material facts to such an extent that it in no way reflects the applicant’s performance. It cannot be legitimate to make a negative assessment at the end of a year without having given the applicant any opportunity to address any failings in his performance.


title: Case T-217/11 REV: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Staelen v Ombudsman (Non-contractual liability — Application for revision — Consequences of a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice partially setting aside a judgment of the General Court — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/24

         Order of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — Staelen v Ombudsman
   (Case T-217/11 REV) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Application for revision - Consequences of a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice partially setting aside a judgment of the General Court - No new facts - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 042/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Olona, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: initially G. Grill, then L. Papadias, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for revision of the judgment of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Claire Staelen is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-712/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision at the consolidated level — Group subject to prudential supervision — Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body — Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Capital requirements — Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB
   (Case T-712/15) (1)

   ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision at the consolidated level - Group subject to prudential supervision - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body - Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Capital requirements - Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013))
   (2018/C 042/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie and P. Mele, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K, Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and D. Martin, M. Pittie and M. Françon, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG 7B84NLR5984/28 of the ECB of 4 October 2015 setting out the prudential requirements for the Crédit Mutuel group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-665/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by the European Commission against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/6

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by the European Commission against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank
   (Case C-665/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Steiblytė, K.-Ph. Wojcik, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA, European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2017 in case T-247/16, Trasta Komercbanka AS, Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, SIA C & R Invest, Figon Co Limited, G.C.K J Holding Netherlands B.V. and Rikam Holding S.A. — SPF against European Central Bank insofar as it dismisses the objection of inadmissibility as regards the application brought by the shareholders of Trasta Komercbanka AS;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Mr Ivan Fursin, Mr Igors Buimisters, SIA C & R Invest, Figon Co Limited, G.C.K J Holding Netherlands B.V. and Rikam Holding S.A. — SPF as inadmissible;

               —

               order the applicants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court has erroneously considered that it was necessary to declare admissible an application for annulment brought by shareholders of a credit institution in liquidation against a decision to withdraw the authorisation of the credit institution in order to provide an effective remedy. In so doing, it has neglected the other remedies available to the credit institution, in the form of a timely application for annulment and of a request for interim measures, and to the shareholders, in the form of an action for damages against the European Central Bank before the European Courts and possibly in the form of other actions before national courts.
   The appeal is based on the following two pleas:

               1)

               The applicant submits that the General Court has violated Article 263 TFEU in respect of the condition of legal interest. By holding that the direct shareholders were prevented from exercising their rights to determine the management and policy of the company in liquidation as they would have done if a company was still of going concern, the General Court has erroneously departed from the case-law according to which the shareholders have no legal interest separate from the one of their company. The General Court has further failed to consider that even shareholders of an active company, and certainly minority shareholders, have no right to force the management of the company to bring an action. It has also failed to distinguish between the effects of a decision by the banking supervisor to withdraw a banking authorisation and those of the later decision by a national court to institute liquidation proceedings. Finally, it has wrongly considered that the shareholders of a company in liquidation should be able to exercise their membership rights in the same way as shareholders of an active company.

               2)

               The applicant submits that the General Court has violated the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in respect of the conditions of individual and direct concern.

         Concerning the first condition, the General Court firstly failed to consider that the possibility to determine more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them as long as that measure is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by it. Secondly, it erroneously held that a decision to withdraw a banking authorisation concerns the shareholders of a credit institution, while it only concerns the credit institution itself. Thirdly, it erroneously considered that the decision by the European Central Bank affected the shareholders by reason of certain qualities peculiar to them or of a factual situation which differentiates them from any other persons, while that decision only concerned the credit institution and did not affect the rights of the shareholders. Finally, even assuming that the sole shareholder of a company may be individually concerned by a decision the [European Central Bank] addressed to that company, the General Court wrongly assimilated the situation of individual minority shareholders to the situation of the sole shareholder.
   Concerning the second condition, the General Court firstly erred in law when holding that the shareholders were directly concerned by the withdrawal of the banking authorisation by failing to distinguish between the effects of that withdrawal and those of a decision by a national court to initiate liquidation proceedings. Secondly, it wrongly held that the decision of the European Central Bank directly concerned the shareholders because of the intensity of its effects. In so doing, the General Court failed to distinguish between the legal effect of the decision, which are confined to the credit institution, and its economic consequences, which may well extend to shareholders.


title: Case T-616/16: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — FE v Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/45

         Order of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — FE v Commission
   (Case T-616/16) (1)

   (2018/C 042/63)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-46/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-669/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2017 by Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/8

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2017 by Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank
   (Case C-669/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, L. Feddern, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside no. 1 of the order, i.e. the decision by the General Court that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of Trasta Komercbanka AS (TKB);

               —

               declare that the action for annulment of TKB is not devoid of purpose;

               —

               declare that the action for annulment is admissible;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment, and

               —

               order the European Central Bank (ECB) to pay the appellants’ costs and the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that TKB’s remedy is entrusted to the liquidator. The appellants claim that this assumption is irreconcilable with Art. 263 TFEU and the guarantee of an effective remedy as well as a number of related principles.
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that the shareholders’ action is a substitute for the shareholders’ ability to defend TKB’s license through an action by TKB itself.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim a number of further substantive errors including a failure to apply the nemo auditur-principle because of the ECB’s interference with TKB’s remedy.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court failed to take into account the requirements (including form requirements) for a valid revocation of the power of attorney originally issued by TKB.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erroneously applied Art. 51(1) rather than Art. 131 of the Rules of Procedure as well as a number of further procedural errors.


title: Case T-64/17: Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/46

         Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)
   (Case T-64/17) (1)

   (2018/C 042/64)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case T-52/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision at the consolidated level — Group subject to prudential supervision — Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body — Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Capital requirements — Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB
   (Case T-52/16) (1)

   ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision at the consolidated level - Group subject to prudential supervision - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body - Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Capital requirements - Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013))
   (2018/C 042/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie and P. Mele, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K, Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and M. Pittie, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG 7B84NLR5984/40 of the ECB of 4 December 2015 setting out the prudential requirements for the Crédit Mutuel group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-114/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Delfin Wellness v EUIPO — Laher (Infrared and sauna cabins) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered community designs representing infrared and sauna cabins — Earlier designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Disclosure of the earlier designs before the date of priority — Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Right to be heard — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Delfin Wellness v EUIPO — Laher (Infrared and sauna cabins)
   (Case T-114/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community designs representing infrared and sauna cabins - Earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty - Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of the earlier designs before the date of priority - Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Right to be heard - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2018/C 042/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Delfin Wellness GmbH (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: T. Riedler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sabine Laher (Weyer, Austria) (represented by: P. Pfeil, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against three decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Cases R 849/2014–3, R 850/2014–3 and R 851/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Delfin Wellness and Ms Laher.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Delfin Wellness GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Ms Sabine Laher for the purposes of the three sets of proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-252/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2017 — Ferrovial and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Corporate tax provision which enables Spanish undertakings to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in foreign undertakings — New administrative interpretation — Inclusion in the register of direct acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies — Application for a stay of execution — No urgency)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 November 2017 — Ferrovial and Others v Commission
   (Case T-252/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation - Corporate tax provision which enables Spanish undertakings to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in foreign undertakings - New administrative interpretation - Inclusion in the register of direct acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies - Application for a stay of execution - No urgency))
   (2018/C 042/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ferrovial, SA (Madrid, Spain), Ferrovial Servicios, SA (Madrid) and Amey UK plc (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and M. Linares Gil, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application under Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/314 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain Scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions (OJ 2015 L 56, p. 38).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-280/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO (GEO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark GEO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — GeoClimaDesign v EUIPO — GEO (GEO)
   (Case T-280/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark GEO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 042/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GeoClimaDesign AG (Fürstenwalde/Spree, Germany) (represented by: B. Lanz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: GEO Gesellschaft für Energie und Oekologie GmbH (Langenhorn, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2016 (Case R 1679/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between GEO and GeoClimaDesign.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GeoClimaDesign AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-902/16: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Grey cement market in Croatia — Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/25

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
   (Case T-902/16) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Grey cement market in Croatia - Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 042/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate the in-depth examination phase, pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, aimed at assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of the control of Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement KG through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               HeidelbergCement AG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-482/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB Staff — Time limit for bringing an action — Reasonable period of time — Pension — 2008 Reform — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
   (Case T-482/16 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - EIB Staff - Time limit for bringing an action - Reasonable period of time - Pension - 2008 Reform - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Liability - Non-material damage))
   (2018/C 042/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 33 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: C. Cortese and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli and lastly by T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB, contained in the applicants’ payslips for the month of February 2010, to increase their pension contribution rates and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay a symbolic EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff members of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs of these proceedings.

               3.

               Orders the EIB to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-34/10, T-234/11 P and T-234/11 P RENV–RX.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-34/10).


title: Case C-670/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2017 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2017 in Case T-327/15 Hellenic Republic v European Commission

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/8

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2017 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2017 in Case T-327/15 Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-670/17 P)
   (2018/C 042/12)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, Ι. Pachi and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that its appeal should be admitted, that the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 19 September 2017 in Case Τ-327/15 should be set aside, that the action brought on 2 June 2015 by the Hellenic Republic should be upheld and that the Commission Implementing Decision of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction), which was published as C(2015) 1936 final, should be annulled.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal the appellant relies on five grounds of appeal.
   The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the transitional provisions of Regulations (EC) 1083/2006 (1) and (ΕU) 1303/2013 (2) read together with the provisions of Regulation (EC) 1290/2005 (3), and also an error of law, with respect to the application of the provisions of Regulation 1260/1999 (4) to the EAGGF — Guidance Section after 01.01.2007 — Insufficient and defective statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.
   The second ground of appeal is based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 39 of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 — Contradictory and insufficient statement of reasons.
   The third ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and erroneous and selective application of the procedural provisions of Articles 144 and 145 of Regulation (ΕU) 1303/2013 that were held in the judgment under appeal to be applicable, while the judgment under appeal fails to give effect to the procedural safeguard of Article 52(4)(c) of Regulation (ΕU) 1306/2013 (5) which defines in this case the competence ratione temporis of the Commission — Contradictory and insufficient statement in the judgment under appeal.
   The fourth ground of appeal is based on the interpretation and application of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of the legitimate expectations of the Member State in the framework of its sincere cooperation with the Commission in the assessment of the consequences of the express acceptance of the final report on the programme which was issued nine months late and the delayed initiation of the procedure for the imposition of a financial correction, contrary to the Commission’s self-imposed obligation to achieve clearance and final payment of operational programmes within a reasonable time.
   Last, the fifth ground of appeal is based on the wholly insufficient statement of reasons, in the opinion of the appellant, for the dismissal of the submissions of the Hellenic Republic with respect to the imposition of the multiple and therefore disproportionate financial correction.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (

         OJ 2006, L 210, p. 25).

      (2)  Regulation (ΕU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (

         OJ 2013, L 347,p. 320).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (
         OJ 2005, L 209, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (
         OJ 1999, L 161, p. 1).

      (5)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (

         OJ 2013, L 347, p. 549).


title: Case T-575/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Martinez De Prins and Others v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Agents — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions in Ghana from 25 % to 20 % — Plea of illegality)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Martinez De Prins and Others v EEAS
   (Case T-575/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Agents - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions - Decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions in Ghana from 25 % to 20 % - Plea of illegality))
   (2018/C 042/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: David Martinez De Prins (Accra, Ghana) and the 9 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the applicants’ salary statements of the month of March 2015 as well as their subsequent salary statements, to the extent that those statements apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 to reduce, from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The salary statements of Mr David Martinez De Prins and the other officials and agents of the European External Action Service (EEAS) whose names are in annex established by the EEAS for the month of March 2015 are annulled to the extent that those statements apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 to reduce, from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Ghana.

               2.

               The action is dismissed for the remainder.

               3.

               The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under the number F-153/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-460/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — AETMD v Council (Dumping — Prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand — Partial interim review — Amendment of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Association representing EU producers — Infringement of procedural rights — Rights of the defence)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — AETMD v Council
   (Case T-460/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand - Partial interim review - Amendment of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Association representing EU producers - Infringement of procedural rights - Rights of the defence))
   (2018/C 042/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and C. Zimmerman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, S. Gubel, lawyer, and B. O'Connor, Solicitor)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents) and River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (Kaeng Sian, Thailand) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 of 24 March 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2014 L 91, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 of 24 March 2014 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD);

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-907/16: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Mergers — Market for grey cement in Croatia — Decision to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/26

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
   (Case T-907/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Competition - Mergers - Market for grey cement in Croatia - Decision to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 042/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(206) 6591 final of 10 October 2016, to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, seeking to assess the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of control of Cemex Hungária Épitöanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Schwenk Zement KG is ordered to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-577/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Campo and Others v EEAS (Civil Service — Officials — Agents — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Decision reducing the allowance for living conditions in Montenegro from 15 % to 10 % — Plea of illegality)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Campo and Others v EEAS
   (Case T-577/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Agents - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions - Decision reducing the allowance for living conditions in Montenegro from 15 % to 10 % - Plea of illegality))
   (2018/C 042/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Alessandro Campo (Podgorica, Montenegro) and the 12 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary slips in respect of March 2015 and of those drawn up afterwards in so far as those salary slips apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 reducing, with effect from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Montenegro.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the salary slips for March 2015 of Mr Alessandro Campo and of the other officials and agents of the European External Action Service (EEAS), whose names are set out in the annex drawn up by the EEAS on the date on which the action was brought, in so far as those slips apply the decision of the EEAS of 23 February 2015 reducing, with effect from 1 January 2015, the allowance for living conditions paid to EU staff posted to Montenegro;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-6/16, transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-148/17: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament (Action for annulment — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Partial inadmissibility — Partial non-suit)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/26

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
   (Case T-148/17) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Partial inadmissibility - Partial non-suit))
   (2018/C 042/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: initially, M. Ceccaldi and, subsequently, F. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jensen, M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning recovery from the applicant of the amount of EUR 56 554 unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, of the related debit note, and of the decision of the Quaestors of 13 December 2016 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 June 2016.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch as it relates to the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning the recovery from Ms Mylène Troszczynski of the amount of EUR 56 554 unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, and of the related debit note, and to the claim that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action inasmuch as it relates to the application for annulment of the decision of the Quaestors of 13 December 2016 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 June 2016.

               3.

               Ms Troszczynksi shall bear her own costs and also pay those incurred by the Parliament.

               4.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-592/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HQ v CPVO (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Manifest error of assessment — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Psychological harassment — Misuse of powers — Liability)

text:
               5.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HQ v CPVO
   (Case T-592/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Manifest error of assessment - Duty of care - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Psychological harassment - Misuse of powers - Liability))
   (2018/C 042/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendants: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: A. Verdini, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and de A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU, seeking, first, annulment of the CPVO decisions of 24 June 2015 not to renew the applicant's contract and of 20 January 2016 rejecting the complaint and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HQ to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, of 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-22/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


               8.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht dated 12 October 2017 in the case Edmund Falkenhahn AG v the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority
   (Case E-9/17)
   (2018/C 46/06)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 October 2017 from the Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case Edmund Falkenhahn AG v the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority on the following questions:

               I/1.

               Is it compatible with Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (Electronic Money Directive) if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds in the period between issuance (Article 11(1)) and redemption (Article 11(2)), provided that redemption (Article 11(2)) is at least at par value?

               I/2.

               If Question I/1 is answered in the affirmative: Can the different value referred to in Question I/1 be linked to a variable value (such as the price of gold)?

               I/3.

               If Question I/2 is answered in the affirmative: In the case of a link to a variable value (such as the price of gold), is it compatible with Article 12 of the Electronic Money Directive for redemption (Article 11(2)) to be realised at an amount above par value?

               II/1.

               Does Article 7(2) first and second subparagraph of the Electronic Money Directive define exhaustively what are to be regarded as secure, low-risk assets within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the Electronic Money Directive read in conjunction with Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (Payment Services Directive)?

               II/2.

               If Question II/1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 9(1)(a) of the Payment Services Directive preclude the competent authority from defining what constitutes secure, (liquid) low-risk assets only as part of the decision on the granting of an authorisation in accordance with Article 10 of the Electronic Money Directive?

               II/3.

               If Question II/2 is answered in the negative: Is the reference to Article 9(1) and (2) of the Payment Services Directive contained in the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the Electronic Money Directive to be interpreted as meaning ‘secure, low-risk assets’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the Electronic Money Directive or as meaning ‘secure, liquid low-risk assets’?

               II/4.

               Depending on the answer to Question II/3: Is gold a secure, (liquid) low-risk asset?


title: Case T-445/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico) (Plant variety rights — Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico — Technical examination — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Uniformity — Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Complementary examination — Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 — Equal treatment — Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2018 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)
   (Case T-445/16) (1)

   ((Plant variety rights - Application for Community plant variety rights for the plant variety Gala Schnico - Technical examination - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Uniformity - Article 8 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Complementary examination - Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 - Equal treatment - Examination of the facts by the CPVO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94))
   (2018/C 123/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad, F. Mattina and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 22 April 2016 (Case A 005/2014) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right in respect of the plant variety Gala Schnico.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Schniga GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.