title: Case T-737/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Vnesheconombank v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Application for the suspension of operation of measures — No urgency)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Vnesheconombank v Council
   (Case T-737/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Application for the suspension of operation of measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 402/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, J. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 13) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 83312014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-405/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2017 by Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2017 in Case T-814/16: Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova v European Parliament

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/7

         Appeal brought on 4 July 2017 by Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2017 in Case T-814/16: Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova v European Parliament
   (Case C-405/17 P)
   (2017/C 402/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 10 October 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-642/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — González Buñuel and Others v SRB

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/44

         Action brought on 21 September 2017 — González Buñuel and Others v SRB
   (Case T-642/17)
   (2017/C 402/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Antonio González Buñuel (Barcelona, Spain) and 12 other applicants (represented by: J. De Castro Martín, M. Azpitarte Sánchez and J. Ruiz de Villa Jubany, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               In accordance with Article 263 TFEU, annul the Decision of the SRB concerning the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL (SRB/EES/2017/08);

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants, at the expense of the Single Resolution Fund established in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 806/2014, compensation for the damage caused to the applicants as a direct consequence of the Decision concerning the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL and the value of which corresponds to the market value of the capital instruments of the banking institution the day preceding (6 June 2017) the implementation of the resolution scheme; in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not uphold the previous claim for compensation, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation, the value of which corresponds to the difference, which will be determined by the valuation of the independent person laid down in Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014, between the payment in respect of their claims received by the applicants pursuant to the application of the Decision and the amount they would have received under a normal insolvency procedure;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-682/17: Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/52

         Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)
   (Case T-682/17)
   (2017/C 402/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien’ — EU trade mark No 8 216 343

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2085/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

               —

               make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-211/14 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven) (European Union trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Form of an oven — Genuine use of a mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Nature of use of the mark — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)
   (Case T-211/14 RENV) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Form of an oven - Genuine use of a mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1), and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
   (2017/C 402/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2014 (Case R 927/2013-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Klement and Bullerjan

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Toni Klement to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-492/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Tübingen (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2017 — Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger, Patric Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Tübingen (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2017 — Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger, Patric Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte
   (Case C-492/17)
   (2017/C 402/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Tübingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Creditor and appellant/respondent: Südwestrundfunk

      Debtors and respondents/appellants: Tilo Rittinger, Patric Wolter, Harald Zastera, Dagmar Fahner, Layla Sofan, Marc Schulte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the national Baden-Württembergisches Gesetz vom 18.10.2011 zur Geltung des Rundfunkbeitragsstaatsvertrags (Baden-Württemberg law of 18 October 2011 on the application of the interstate treaty on the broadcasting contribution fee, ‘RdFunkBeitrStVtrBW’) of 17 December 2010, last amended by Article 4 of the Neunzehnter Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag vom 3. Dezember 2015 (nineteenth treaty amending the interstate broadcasting treaty of 3 December 2015) (Law of 23 February 2016 — GBl. pp. 126, 129) incompatible with EU law because the contribution fee unconditionally levied since 1 January 2013 in principle from every adult living in the German Land of Baden-Württemberg to finance the public service broadcasters SWR (Südwestrundfunk) and ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen) represents preferential aid that infringes EU law for the exclusive benefit of these public service broadcasting bodies compared to private broadcasting organisations? Are Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the law on the broadcasting contribution fee should have been approved by the Commission and is invalid without that approval?

               2.

               Are Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to be interpreted as encompassing the provision laid down in the national RdFunkBeitrStVtrBW law under which a contribution fee for the exclusive benefit of official/public service broadcasters is unconditionally levied in principle from every adult living in Baden-Württemberg, because this contribution fee contains preferential aid that infringes EU law with the effect that broadcasters from other EU countries are excluded from certain technology, as the contribution fees are used to set up a competing transmission method (DVB-T2 monopoly) whose use by foreign broadcasters is not provided for? Are Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to be interpreted as encompassing not only direct financial aid but also other privileges with economic relevance (right to issue enforcement instruments, authority to act both as an economic undertaking and also as an official body, better position in the calculation of debts)?

               3.

               Is it compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of preferential aid if, under a national Baden-Württemberg law, a German television broadcaster which is organised under public law and takes the form of a public body but which at the same time also competes with private broadcasters for advertising is put in a privileged position compared to them, in that, unlike its private competitors, it does not have to go through the ordinary courts to obtain an enforcement instrument for its claims against viewers before being able to enforce these claims, but is itself permitted to create such an instrument equally entitling it to enforcement without the need for a court?

               4.

               Is it compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights/Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (freedom of information) that a Member State provides in a national Baden-Württemberg law that a television broadcaster that takes the form of a public body is entitled to demand a contribution fee, on pain of an administrative fine, to finance none other than that broadcaster from every adult living within the broadcasting territory, irrespective of whether an individual even possesses a reception device or uses only other broadcasters, namely foreign and private ones?

               5.

               Is the national RdFunkBeitrStVtrBW law, particularly Paragraphs 2 and 3, compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination in EU law if the contribution fee payable unconditionally by every resident for the purpose of financing a public service television broadcaster burdens a single parent much more per head than a member of a shared household? Is Directive 2004/113/EC (1) to be interpreted as also encompassing the contribution fee at issue and as meaning that an indirect disadvantage is sufficient when it is 90 % women who are more heavily burdened in the actual circumstances?

               6.

               Is the national RdFunkBeitrStVtrBW law, particularly Paragraphs 2 and 3, compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination in EU law if the contribution fee payable unconditionally by every resident for the purpose of financing a public service television broadcaster is twice as high for persons who need a second home for work reasons than for other workers?

               7.

               Is the national RdFunkBeitrStVtrBW law, particularly Paragraphs 2 and 3, compatible with the principle of equal treatment in EU law, the prohibition of discrimination in EU law and the freedom of establishment in EU law if the contribution fee payable unconditionally by every resident for the purpose of financing a public service television broadcaster is organised as regards persons in such a way that, where the reception is the same, a German living immediately before the border with a neighbouring EU State owes the contribution fee solely depending on the location of his place of residence, but a German living immediately beyond the border does not owe the contribution fee, just as a foreign EU citizen who for work reasons has to settle immediately beyond an internal EU border is charged the contribution fee while an EU citizen immediately before the border is not, even if neither is interested in receiving the German broadcaster?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37.


title: Case T-648/17: Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Dadimer and Others v SRB

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/45

         Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Dadimer and Others v SRB
   (Case T-648/17)
   (2017/C 402/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Dadimer, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and 11 other applicants (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

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

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicants for the harm suffered, in an amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, updated at the date of resolution, and the related default interest accrued from that date up to the date the reimbursement will be made;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-170/16: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2017 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market — Implementation of the decision — Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients — Commission’s failure to adopt a position — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/34

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2017 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission
   (Case T-170/16) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - State aid - Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State - Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market - Implementation of the decision - Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients - Commission’s failure to adopt a position - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 402/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, SLU (Llodio, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, D. Armesto Macías and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in a document of 15 July 2015 entitled ‘Tax matters in the Basque Country (Álava) — Informal communication regarding additional submissions in connection to compatibility with the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the Kingdom of Spain.

               3.

               Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, SLU is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Spain is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-683/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/53

         Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)
   (Case T-683/17)
   (2017/C 402/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ — EU trade mark No 13 118 724

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2086/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

               —

               make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-493/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 August 2017 — Heinrich Weiss and Others

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 August 2017 — Heinrich Weiss and Others
   (Case C-493/17)
   (2017/C 402/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverfassungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Heinrich Weiss, Jürgen Heraeus, Patrick Adenauer, Bernd Lucke, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Joachim Starbatty, Bernd Kölmel, Ulrike Trebesius, Peter Gauweiler, Johann Heinrich von Stein, Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Michels, Reinhold von Eben-Worlée, Michael Göde, Dagmar Metzger, Karl-Heinz Hauptmann, Stefan Städter, Markus C. Kerber and Others

      Defendants: Federal Government, European Central Bank, Deutsche Bundesbank

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme (ECB/2015/10) (1), as amended by Decision (EU) 2015/2101 of the European Central Bank of 5 November 2015 amending Decision (EU) 2015/774 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme (ECB/2015/33) (2), Decision (EU) 2016/702 of the European Central Bank of 18 April 2016 amending Decision (EU) 2015/774 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme (ECB/2016/8) (3) and Decision (EU) 2016/1041 of the European Central Bank of 22 June 2016 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic and repealing Decision (EU) 2015/300 (ECB/2016/18) (4), or the method of its implementation, infringe Article 123(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
               Does it infringe Article 123(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in particular if in the course of the public sector asset purchase programme (PSPP)

                           a)

                           details of the purchases are communicated in a way that creates de facto certainty on the markets that the Eurosystem will purchase part of the bonds to be issued by the Member States?

                           b)

                           even after the event no details are given about compliance with minimum periods between the issue of a debt instrument on the primary market and its purchase on the secondary market, with the result that a review by the courts is not possible in that regard?

                           c)

                           all bonds purchased are not resold but held until maturity and thus withdrawn from the market?

                           d)

                           the Eurosystem purchases marketable debt instruments with a negative yield at maturity?

               2.

               Does the Decision referred to in 1 above then infringe Article 123 TFEU in any event if, in view of changes in conditions on the finance markets, in particular as a result of a shortage of bonds available for purchase, its continued implementation requires a continual loosening of the originally agreed purchase rules and the restrictions laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice for a bond purchase programme, such as the PSPP represents, lose their effect?

               3.

               Does the current version of Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015, referred to in 1 above, infringe Article 119 and Article 127(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 to 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank because it exceeds the monetary policy mandate of the European Central Bank laid down in those provisions and for that reason encroaches upon the competence of the Member States?
               Is the mandate of the European Central Bank exceeded in particular as a result of the fact that

                           a)

                           on the basis of the volume of the PSPP, which amounted to EUR 1 534,8 billion on 12 May 2017, the Decision referred to in 1 above materially influences the refinancing terms of the Member States?

                           b)

                           in view of the improvement in the refinancing terms of the Member States referred to in (a) above and their effect on the commercial banks, the Decision referred to in 1 above has not only indirect economic policy consequences but its objectively ascertainable effects suggest that an economic policy aim of the programme is at least of equal priority as the monetary policy aim?

                           c)

                           on account of its powerful economic policy effects, the Decision referred to in 1 above infringes the principle of proportionality?

                           d)

                           in the absence of a specific statement of reasons during the period of more than two years of implementation, it is not possible to examine whether the Decision referred to in 1 above is still necessary and proportionate?

               4.

               Does the Decision referred to in 1 above infringe Article 119 and Article 127(1) and (2) TFEU and Articles 17 to 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank in any event because its volume and implementation period of more than two years and the resulting economic policy effects give grounds for a different view of the need for and proportionality of the PSPP and consequently, from a certain point in time, it exceeds the economic policy mandate of the European Central Bank?

               5.

               Does the unlimited sharing of risks between the national central banks of the Eurosystem that may be provided for under the Decision referred to in 1 above, in the event of the non-repayment of bonds of the central governments and of equivalent issuers, infringe Article 123 and Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, if as a result it may be necessary for national central banks to be recapitalised using budget funds?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 121, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ 2015 L 303, p. 106.

      (3)  OJ 2016 L 121, p. 24.

      (4)  OJ 2016 L 169, p. 14.


title: Case T-691/17: Action brought on 28 September 2017 — hoechstmass Balzer v EUIPO (Shape of a tape measure)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/54

         Action brought on 28 September 2017 — hoechstmass Balzer v EUIPO (Shape of a tape measure)
   (Case T-691/17)
   (2017/C 402/71)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: hoechstmass Balzer GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany) (represented by: K. Zapfer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional EU mark (Shape of a tape measure) — Application for registration No 15 004 997

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 2331/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 2331/2016-4) — the contested decision — as regards the tridimensional mark 015004997;

               —

               order the defendant/EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
               in the alternative

               —

               limit the list of goods in class 09 by adding the words ‘tailors’ to ‘tailors’ tape measure’ and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in that it covers ‘tailors’ tape measures’.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-649/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/45

         Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
   (Case T-649/17)
   (2017/C 402/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà and S. Semey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s implied negative decision of 13 July 2017 resulting from the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 20 March 2017 under reference GestDem No 2017/1725;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant argues in the first place that there has been an absolute failure to state reasons, given the implied refusal of access to the requested document, entitled ‘Roadmap of measures towards the compliance of selected and authorised MSS operators with common conditions of Decision 626/2008/EC (1), including intermediate new steps and corresponding time limits’. To the extent that the Court should consider that the Commission discharged its duty to state reasons already in the refusal letter of 5 May 2017, under Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2), in response to the applicant’s initial request, the reasoning therein by way of fiction also being the reasoning of the implicit decision, adopted pursuant to Article 8(3) of that regulation, the applicant requests the Court to consider the subsequent pleas directed at that reasoning.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested document.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests, as referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of investigations, as referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined there to be no overriding interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined that partial access was not possible within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001.

      (1)  Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-233/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1841 — Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account of additional evidence — Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841)
   (Case T-233/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark 1841 - Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account of additional evidence - Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 402/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by M. Capostagno and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2015 (Case R 805/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Armand Thiery and Cofra Holding.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cofra Holding AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Armand Thiery SAS.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case T-207/16: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission (Action for annulment — Measures never having been adopted — Request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate — Request that the application be interpreted as referring to a measure other than the contested measures — Dismissal — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/34

         Order of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission
   (Case T-207/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Measures never having been adopted - Request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Request that the application be interpreted as referring to a measure other than the contested measures - Dismissal - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 402/45)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of an alleged exclusion decision taken against the applicant and of an alleged decision to register the applicant and to activate the exclusion warning against the applicant in the Early Warning System (EWS) or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs in the main proceedings and in the application for interim measures, and shall pay two thirds of the costs of Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in those proceedings.

               3.

               Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis shall bear one third of its own costs in those proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 251,11.7.2016.


title: Case T-435/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission (Dumping — Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines — Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 — Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Assembly operations — Provenance and origin of bicycle parts — Certificates of origin — Insufficient evidentiary value — Manufacturing costs of bicycle parts)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission
   (Case T-435/15) (1)

   ((Dumping - Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Assembly operations - Provenance and origin of bicycle parts - Certificates of origin - Insufficient evidentiary value - Manufacturing costs of bicycle parts))
   (2017/C 402/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: P. Bentley, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015, L 122, p. 4), to the extent that it applies to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, to the extent that it applies to Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-511/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Lintner Györgyné v UniCredit Bank Hungary

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Lintner Györgyné v UniCredit Bank Hungary
   (Case C-511/17)
   (2017/C 402/12)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lintner Györgyné

      Defendant: UniCredit Bank Hungary

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (1) — having regard also to the national legislation requiring legal representation — be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to examine each of the clauses of a contract individually in the light of whether it may be regarded as unfair, irrespective of whether an examination of all the terms of the contract is actually necessary in order to rule on the claim made in the action?

               2.

               If not, is it necessary, contrary to the suggestion in question 1, to interpret Article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive as meaning that, in order to find that the clause on which the claim is based is unfair, all the other terms of the contract must also be examined?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, does that mean that it is in order to be able to establish that the clause at issue is unfair that it is necessary to examine the entire contract, that is to say that it is not necessary to examine each part of the contract individually for unfairness, independently of the clause disputed in the action?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-670/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2017 — Osho Lotus Commune v EUIPO — Osho International Foundation (OSHO) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark OSHO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive 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) — No adverse effect on public policy — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2017 — Osho Lotus Commune v EUIPO — Osho International Foundation (OSHO)
   (Case T-670/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark OSHO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive 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) - No adverse effect on public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 402/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Osho Lotus Commune eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Ivanov and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Osho International Foundation (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2015 (Case R 1997/2014-4), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Osho Lotus Commune and Osho International Foundation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Osho Lotus Commune eV to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

               3.

               Orders Osho International Foundation to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-694/17: Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/55

         Action brought on 10 October 2017 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)
   (Case T-694/17)
   (2017/C 402/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ — European Union trade mark No 12 672 853

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 1758/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and find that the cancellation of EU trade mark No 12 672 853 ‘SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS’ for Classes 35 and 41 is unfounded; and

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal and the invalidity proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.


title: Case C-527/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2017 — LN

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2017 — LN
   (Case C-527/17)
   (2017/C 402/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LN

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Question referred

   Must Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of that regulation, an authorisation under Directive 93/42/EEC (2) for a combined medical device and medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Directive 93/42/EEC is to be treated as a valid marketing authorisation under Directive 2001/83/EC (3), where, as part of the authorisation procedure laid down in Annex I, Section 7.4, first paragraph, to Directive 93/42/EEC, the quality, safety and usefulness of the medicinal product component has been verified by the medicinal products authority of a Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC?

      (1)  OJ L 152, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case T-74/17: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO (Shaken, not stirred)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/55

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO (Shaken, not stirred)
   (Case T-74/17) (1)

   (2017/C 402/73)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case C-532/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd.

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd.
   (Case C-532/17)
   (2017/C 402/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

      Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd.

      Question referred

   Is the concept of ‘operating air carrier’ in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, for a contractually-stipulated number of flights under a so-called wet lease, but which does not bear the principal operational responsibility for the individual flights, and where it is stated in the passengers’ booking confirmation that the flight is ‘operated by …’ that very carrier, is the operating air carrier within the meaning of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-540/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2017 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed
   (Case C-540/17)
   (2017/C 402/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Adel Hamed

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case, Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case, Bulgaria), in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) or under the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC (2) that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and, more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case, Bulgaria),

                           (a)

                           does not meet the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) and/or

                           (b)

                           infringes Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               2.

               If Question 1(a) or (b) is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where

                           (a)

                           persons qualifying as refugees in the Member State in which they so qualify (in this case, Bulgaria) do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, but they are to that extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State,

                           (b)

                           persons qualifying as refugees are, admittedly, formally treated in the same way as nationals of that State with regard to the conditions relating to subsistence but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the corresponding benefits and there is no integration programme appropriately tailored and addressing the special needs of the persons concerned such as to ensure de facto equivalent treatment to that of nationals of that State?

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

      (2)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

      (3)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-501/17 (OJ C 338, 9.10.2017)

text:
               27.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/57

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-501/17
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 338 of 9 October 2017
      )
   (2017/C 402/75)
   The Notice in Case T-501/17 Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB should read as follows:

      Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB
      (Case T-501/17)
      (2017/C 338/17)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Solana López, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  declare invalid, and consequently annul, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. transmitted to it by the Single Resolution Board, and also annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EEX/2017/08) on the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. with identification No 80H66LPTDLMOP28XF25;

                  —

                  In the alternative, if the General Court does not uphold the invalidity application above, declare the partial invalidity and annul in part SRB’s decision mentioned above in so far as it concerns Article 6(1)(b) and (c) of that decision, relating to the conversion and depreciation of 64 695 preference shares (classified erroneously as additional capital Tier 1 instruments of the Banco Popular Español), although they were instruments issued by POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. (ISIN D00910702).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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


201711170351555792017/C 412/45872017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171019313222Case T-87/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Matrix light — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3120120171019EN0045312322Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)
   (Case T-87/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Matrix light — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2017/C 412/45Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Kuka Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 886/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Matrix light as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Kuka Systems GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


201711170341555672017/C 412/345022015TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171019242411Case T-502/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Rights of defence)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN2410120171019EN0034241241Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-502/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Flat-rate financial corrections — Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Rights of defence)’2017/C 412/34Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by M. Sampol Pucurull, A. Gavela Llopis and V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Guillem Carrau and D. Triantafyllou, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) as regards certain corrections made in respect of Catalonia, on the one hand, and the Canaries, on the other hand.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the application;

            2.

            Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


201711170181555712017/C 412/235312017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170908151511Case C-531/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 September 2017 — Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1510120170908EN0023151151Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 September 2017 — Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH
   (Case C-531/17)2017/C 412/23Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH

      Respondent authority: Zollamt Feldkirch Wolfurt

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is the exemption under Article 138 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (
                  1
               ) for an intra-Community transfer from a Member State to be refused where the taxable person carrying out that transfer in another Member State does declare in the other Member State the intra-Community acquisition linked to the intra-Community transfer, but commits tax evasion in connection with a subsequent taxable transaction with the goods concerned in the other Member State by wrongfully declaring an exempt intra-Community supply from that other Member State?

            2.

            Is it relevant to the answer to Question 1 whether the taxable person had intended at the time of the intra-Community transfer to commit tax evasion in respect of a subsequent transaction with those goods?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201711170491555782017/C 412/467732016TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171016323211Case T-773/16: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2017 — Salehi v Commission (Action for failure to act — Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Failure by the Commission to adopt implementing acts temporarily suspending the exemption from visa requirements for certain categories of third country nationals — Position of the Commission — Manifestly inadmissible)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3210120171016EN0046321321Order of the General Court of 16 October 2017 — Salehi v Commission
   (Case T-773/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for failure to act — Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Failure by the Commission to adopt implementing acts temporarily suspending the exemption from visa requirements for certain categories of third country nationals — Position of the Commission — Manifestly inadmissible)’2017/C 412/46Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt an implementing act within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) and failed to notify the applicant thereof.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            Mr Dominik Salehi shall pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


201711170071555592017/C 412/245352017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170911161611Case C-535/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2017 — NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of OJ B.V. and PI v BNP Paribas Fortis N.V.
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1610120170911EN0024161161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2017 — NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of OJ B.V. and PI v BNP Paribas Fortis N.V.
   (Case C-535/17)2017/C 412/24Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of OJ B.V. and PI

      Defendant: BNP Paribas Fortis N.V.

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is a claim for damages against a third party brought by the liquidator pursuant to the task assigned to him in Article 68(1) of the Faillissementswet of administering and liquidating the bankrupt estate on behalf of the joint creditors, on the grounds that that third party behaved wrongfully towards the creditors, and the proceeds of which, if the claim succeeds, are added to the estate, covered by the exception of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (
                  1
               ) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

            2.

            If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and the claim concerned is therefore covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (
                  2
               ) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, is that claim then governed by the law of the Member State where the insolvency proceedings were opened under Article 4(1) of that regulation, both as regards the power of the liquidator to bring that claim and as regards the substantive law applicable to that claim?

            3.

            If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, should the courts of the Member State where the insolvency proceedings were opened then take account, whether or not by analogy, of:

                     (a)

                     the provisions of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in the sense that the defendant can defend itself against a claim brought by the liquidator for the benefit of the joint creditors by proving that its conduct did not result in it being liable, if assessed on the basis of the law which would have been applicable to the claim if it had not been brought by the liquidator, but by an individual creditor as a result of a wrongful act;

                     (b)

                     the provisions of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (
                           3
                        ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), in conjunction with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, that is to say, with the security regulations and codes of conduct applicable at the site of the alleged wrongful act, such as financial rules of conduct for banks?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
   (
         3
      )	OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.


201711170381555942017/C 412/475802017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170824323322Case T-580/17: Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Karp v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3220120170824EN0047322332Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Karp v Parliament
   (Case T-580/17)2017/C 412/47Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the decision of the authority authorized to conclude contracts of employment for the EFDD group in the European Parliament by which it classified him in function group II, grade 4, step 1, while entrusting him with advisory tasks consistent with a function group IV salary grade until the end of his employment contract on 11/11/2016;

            —

            award the applicant damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by him, including damages for the alleged loss of opportunity to be recruited after the end of his employment contract.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 80 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS).

                     —

                     The applicant alleges that he was given a salary grade corresponding to Function Group I for his first contract and at the bottom of Function Group II for the second employment contract he was offered, while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82 of the CEOS.

                     —

                     Article 82 of the CEOS states that a contract member shall be recruited in function group IV if he can demonstrate a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma or professional training of an equivalent level. The applicant satisfied these criteria and his salary grade should have been adjusted accordingly.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging abuse of rights arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts

                     —

                     The applicant claims an abuse of rights by the appointing authority in the choices of contracts offered to him and, especially, in its decision not to renew his employment contract or offer him a permanent contract.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power by virtue of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract.

                     —

                     The reasons for the non-renewal of the applicant’s employment contract are not reasonably justified and constitute a misuse of powers justifying a request for damages.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging loss of an opportunity to be recruited.

                     —

                     The applicant was kept in the dark regarding the possibility of renewal of his contract. He never actually received a proper decision from the appointing authority and could not organize his departure and for example ask for redeployment or submit an application for another position.


201711170161555632017/C 412/255462017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170918161722Case C-546/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2017 — DISA Gas SAU v Administración del Estado, Redexis Gas, S.L., Repsol Butano, S.A.
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1620120170918EN0025162172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2017 — DISA Gas SAU v Administración del Estado, Redexis Gas, S.L., Repsol Butano, S.A.
   (Case C-546/17)2017/C 412/25Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DISA Gas SAU

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Redexis Gas, S.L., Repsol Butano, S.A.

      Questions referred

            1)

            In the light of the case-law laid down in [the judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility, C-265/08], is a measure setting a maximum price for cylinders of bottled liquefied gas, in so far as it is a measure for the protection of socially vulnerable users, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the following circumstances occur?

                     —

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

                     —

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

                     —

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

            2)

            In the light of the case-law laid down in [the judgment of 20 April 2010, Federutility, C-265/08], is the obligation placed on the dominant operator in a given territory to provide home delivery of bottled liquefied petroleum gas, on the ground that it protects socially vulnerable users or residents in areas that are difficult to access, compatible with that case-law or with the principle of proportionality where, separately or together, any of the circumstances listed in the previous question occur?


201711170081555432017/C 412/121562016CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201710127711Case C-156/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Article 1(3) — Community Customs Code — Article 78 — Rule making the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice — Whether a valid commercial invoice may be presented after the customs declaration — Refusal to refund)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN710120171012EN00127171Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut
   (Case C-156/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Article 1(3) — Community Customs Code — Article 78 — Rule making the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice — Whether a valid commercial invoice may be presented after the customs declaration — Refusal to refund)’2017/C 412/12Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tigers GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the presentation, after the customs declaration has been made, of a valid commercial invoice, for the purposes of fixing a definitive anti-dumping duty, in the case where all the other preconditions necessary for obtaining a company-specific anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied and compliance with the proper application of the anti-dumping duties is ensured, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


201711170091555442017/C 412/265722017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170928171711Case C-572/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Riksåklagaren v Imran Syed
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1710120170928EN0026171171Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Riksåklagaren v Imran Syed
   (Case C-572/17)2017/C 412/26Language of the case: Swedish
      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Riksåklagaren

      Respondent: Imran Syed

      Questions referred

            1.

            When goods bearing a protected motif are unlawfully offered for sale in a shop, can there also be an infringement of the author's exclusive right of distribution under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 (
                  1
               ) as regards goods with identical motifs, which are held in storage by the person offering the goods for sale?

            2.

            Is it relevant whether the goods are held in a storage facility connected with the shop or in another location?

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


201711170361555802017/C 412/485972017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170828333421Case T-597/17: Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Poza Poza v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3310120170828EN0048331342Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Poza Poza v SRB
   (Case T-597/17)2017/C 412/48Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Máximo Poza Poza (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: P. Poza Cisneros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Take note of the lodging of the action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to seize the shares of Banco Popular and give judgment annulling that decision and, in consequence, returning to my client its Popular shares and other capital instruments or, in the alternative, order the payment of compensation corresponding to the net value of its Popular assets as of 22 May 2017, valued at EUR 26675424.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


201711170521556122017/C 412/362022016TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171024252622Case T-202/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2017 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark coffee inn — Earlier national figurative mark coffee in — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN2520120171024EN0036252262Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2017 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)
   (Case T-202/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark coffee inn — Earlier national figurative mark coffee in — 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) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2017/C 412/36Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: UAB Keturi kambariai (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Pumputienė, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OÜ Coffee In (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: P. Lätt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 137/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Coffee In and Keturi kambariai.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders UAB Keturi kambariai to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


201711170041555422017/C 412/275732017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170928181811Case C-573/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Popławski
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1810120170928EN0027181181Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Popławski
   (Case C-573/17)2017/C 412/27Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: Daniel Adam Popławski

      Questions referred

            1.

            If the executing judicial authority cannot interpret the national provisions implementing a framework decision in such a way that their application leads to an outcome in conformity with the framework decision, must it then, in accordance with the principle of primacy, disapply those national provisions not in conformity with that framework decision?

            2.

            Does a declaration of a Member State within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (
                  1
               ) that it did not make ‘on the adoption of this Framework Decision’, but at a later date, have legal effect?

      (
         1
      )	Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).


201711170391555952017/C 412/374042016TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171023262611Case T-404/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN2610120171023EN0037261261Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)
   (Case T-404/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)’2017/C 412/37Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rebling, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1613/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

      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 19 May 2016 (Case R 1613/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón;

            2.

            Orders EUIPO and O2 Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


201711170541556032017/C 412/496392017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20170921343521Case T-639/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Madrid Diario de la Noche and Others v Commission and SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3410120170921EN0049341352Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Madrid Diario de la Noche and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-639/17)2017/C 412/49Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicants: Madrid Diario de la Noche (Madrid, Spain) and 24 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

            —

            Acknowledge the lodging of the present application and its supporting documents, as well as the claims it contains;

            —

            Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of SRB and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017 and, consequently, order SRB and the European Commission to refund to the applicants their investments in Banco Popular or, in the alternative, order SRB and the Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability;

            —

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

            —

            Declare the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert invalid and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants in the terms set out in the present application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


201711170191555862017/C 412/132182016CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201710128811Case C-218/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — proceedings brought by Aleksandra Kubicka (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and the European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Immovable property located in a Member State in which legacies ‘per vindicationem’ do not exist — Refusal to recognise the material effects of such a legacy)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN810120171012EN00138181Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — proceedings brought by Aleksandra Kubicka
   (Case C-218/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Succession and the European Certificate of Succession — Scope — Immovable property located in a Member State in which legacies ‘per vindicationem’ do not exist — Refusal to recognise the material effects of such a legacy)’2017/C 412/13Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

      Parties in the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aleksandra Kubicka

      Intervening party: Przemysława Bac, acting in her capacity as notary

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(k) and (l) and Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as precluding refusal, by an authority of a Member State, to recognise the material effects of a legacy ‘by vindication’, provided for by the law governing succession chosen by the testator in accordance with Article 22(1) of that regulation, where that refusal is based on the ground that the legacy concerns the right of ownership of immovable property located in that Member State, whose law does not provide for legacies with direct material effect when succession takes place.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


201711170241555872017/C 412/285782017CJC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171003181922Case C-578/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2017 — Oy Hartwall Ab
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN1820120171003EN0028182192Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2017 — Oy Hartwall Ab
   (Case C-578/17)2017/C 412/28Language of the case: Finnish
      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oy Hartwall Ab

      Other interested parties: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus

      Questions referred

            1.

            For the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC (
                  1
               ) and the condition relating to the distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) thereof, is it of relevance whether the trade mark is to be registered as a figurative mark or a colour mark?

            2.

            If the classification of the mark as a colour mark or figurative mark is of importance in the assessment of its distinctive character, is the mark, regardless of its representation as an image, to be registered as a colour mark in accordance with the trade mark application, or can it be registered only as a figurative mark?

            3.

            If it is possible to register, as a colour mark, a mark represented in the form of a drawing in the trade mark application, is it necessary for the registration as a colour mark of a mark which has been graphically illustrated in the trade mark application with the accuracy required by the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to colour marks (and which is not the registration as a mark of a colour in itself, abstract, without shape or contours), is it necessary to submit in addition solid evidence of use as required by the Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus or any such evidence?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


201711170331556042017/C 412/506842017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171004353511Case T-684/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3510120171004EN0050351351Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)
   (Case T-684/17)2017/C 412/50Language in which the application was lodged: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Amorepacific Corporation (Seoul, Korea) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and F. Klein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primavera Life GmbH (Oy-Mittelberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘p primera Pure Sprout Energy’ — Application for registration No 13 151 683

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2017 in Case R 1744/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;

            —

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

      Plea in law

            —

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


201711170431555832017/C 412/384182016TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171023272711Case T-418/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN2710120171023EN0038271271Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)
   (Case T-418/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)’2017/C 412/38Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rebling, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1614/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

      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 19 May 2016 (Case R 1614/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón;

            2.

            Orders EUIPO and O2 Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


201711170551555702017/C 412/516882017TC41220171204EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20171006353622Case T-688/17: Action brought on 6 October 2017 — Hola v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C4122017EN3520120171006EN0051352362Action brought on 6 October 2017 — Hola v SRB
   (Case T-688/17)2017/C 412/51Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

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

            —

            Principally, order the Board to reimburse the applicant EUR 543242,11 for investments made in Banco Popular shares and EUR 304950 for investments in Banco Popular securities;

            —

            In the alternative, order the Board to pay EUR 451459 for the applicant’s Banco Popular shares and EUR 304950 for its Banco Popular securities (‘the amount due’);

            —

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

            —

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

            —

            Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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