title: Case T-835/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/42

         Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission
   (Case T-835/17)
   (2018/C 072/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister and G. Forwood, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24)

               —

               order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay its costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ [2016] L 176/21).


title: Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5 — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse — Presumption)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/24

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5 - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse - Presumption))
   (2018/C 072/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16)

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006 and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where persons have holdings in a non-resident parent company who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption from withholding tax if they received the dividends from a resident subsidiary directly, denies, provided one of the conditions set by that legislation is satisfied, relief from tax on income from capital tax on distributions of profits to that parent company.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case T-804/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Dual Edge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001))

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Dual Edge)
   (Case T-804/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Dual Edge - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 072/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 (Case R 832/2016-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Dual Edge as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-664/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) — Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Project that is likely to have an impact on water status — Administrative procedure for a permit — Environmental organisation — Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure — Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC — Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd
   (Case C-664/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - EU action in the field of water policy - Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) - Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Project that is likely to have an impact on water status - Administrative procedure for a permit - Environmental organisation - Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure - Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC - Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure))
   (2018/C 072/04)
   Language of the case: Germany

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation

      Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a duly constituted environmental organisation operating in accordance with the requirements of national law must be able to contest before a court a decision granting a permit for a project that may be contrary to the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water as set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

               2.

               The combined provisions of Article 9(3) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that deprive, in situations such as that in question in the main action, environmental organisations of the right to participate, as a party to the procedure, in a permit procedure that is intended to implement Directive 2000/60 and limit the right to bring proceedings contesting decisions resulting from such procedure solely to persons who do have that status.

               3.

               Subject to verification by the referring court of the relevant matters of fact and national law, Article 9(3) and (4) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that in question in the main action, a national procedural rule that imposes a time limit on an environmental organisation, pursuant to which a person loses the status of party to the procedure and therefore cannot bring an action against the decision resulting from that procedure if it failed to submit objections in good time following the opening of the administrative procedure and, at the very latest, during the oral phase of that procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-837/17: Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/43

         Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)
   (Case T-837/17)
   (2018/C 072/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexandru Negru (Iaşi, Romania) (represented by: I.-M. Iliescu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Skyprivate’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2017 in Case R 349/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-516/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) — Austria) — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen v Agrarmarkt Austria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 — Articles 103b, 103d and 103 g — EU financial aid — Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX — Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations — Concept — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/24

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) — Austria) — Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen v Agrarmarkt Austria
   (Case C-516/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Operational programme in the fruit and vegetables sector - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 - Articles 103b, 103d and 103 g - EU financial aid - Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Article 60 and point 23 of Annex IX - Investments on the holdings and/or premises of the producer organisations - Concept - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))
   (2018/C 072/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erzeugerorganisation Tiefkühlgemüse eGen

      Defendant: Agrarmarkt Austria

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, in so far as it refers to investments made ‘on holdings and/or premises of producer organisations’, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the mere fact that an investment made in the context of an operational programme covered by Article 60(1) of that regulation is located on land which is owned by a third party, and not the producer organisation concerned, is not, in principle, under point 23 of Annex IX, a ground for non-eligibility of aid for the expenditure incurred, by that producer organisation, in respect of that investment;

                           —

                           point 23 of Annex IX relates to investments made on holdings and/or premises which are, in law and in fact, under the exclusive control of that producer organisation, so that any use of those investments for the benefit of a third party be excluded.

               2.

               The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the competent national authority, first, refusing payment of the amount of the financial aid which had been requested by a producer organisation for an investment finally considered to be ineligible for that aid pursuant to point 23 of Annex IX to Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 and, second, requesting the producer organisation to reimburse the aid already received for that investment.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a temporal limitation of the effects of the present judgment, it does not preclude the principle of legal certainty being taken into account in order to exclude the recovery of aid unduly paid, provided that the conditions laid down be the same as for the recovery of purely national financial payments, that the interests of the European Union be taken fully into account and that the good faith of the beneficiary of the aid be established.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-277/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 8 and 16 — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 8 and 13 — Operator designated as having significant market power — Price control — Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities — Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices — Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-277/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 8 and 16 - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 8 and 13 - Operator designated as having significant market power - Price control - Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities - Obligation to ensure cost orientation of prices - Prices set below the costs incurred by the operator concerned for the provision of voice call termination services on mobile networks - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 072/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(4) and Article 13 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘the Access Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices is imposed by a national regulatory authority on an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market, that national regulatory authority may, in order to promote efficiency and sustainable competition, set the prices of the services covered by such an obligation below the level of the costs incurred by that operator to provide them, if those costs are higher than the costs of an efficient operator, which is for the referring court to verify.

               2.

               Article 8(4) and Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19, read in combination with Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority may require an operator, designated as having significant market power on a specific market and under an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices, to set its prices annually on the basis of the most up-to-date data and to submit those prices to it for verification together with justification before they become applicable, provided that such obligations are based on the nature of the problem identified, are proportionate and are justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), which is for the referring court to verify.

               3.

               Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an obligation in regard to cost orientation of prices has been imposed on an operator on the basis of Article 13(1) of that directive, that operator may be required to adjust its prices before or after it has started to apply them.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-231/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of ‘dependent child’ — Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ — Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council
   (Case T-231/17) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official))
   (2018/C 072/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 22 June 2016, by which the appointing authority of that institution refused to recognise that the applicant’s granddaughter was a ‘dependent child’ of the applicant within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case C-291/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 7(1) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark — Parallel trade marks — Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) — Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment — Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona — Spain) — Schweppes SA v Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL
   (Case C-291/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Parallel trade marks - Assignment of trade marks in respect of part of the European Economic Area (EEA) - Commercial strategy deliberately promoting the image of a single global trade mark following that assignment - Independent proprietors nonetheless maintaining close commercial and economic relations))
   (2018/C 072/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 8 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schweppes SA

      Defendants: Red Paralela SL and Red Paralela BCN SL, formerly Carbòniques Montaner SL

      Other parties: Orangina Schweppes Holding BV, Schweppes International Ltd, and Exclusivas Ramírez SL,

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in the light of Article 36 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the proprietor of a national trade mark from opposing the import of identical goods bearing the same mark originating in another Member State in which that mark, which initially belonged to that proprietor, is now owned by a third party which has acquired the rights thereto by assignment, when, following that assignment,

               —

               the proprietor, either acting alone or maintaining its coordinated trade mark strategy with that third party, has actively and deliberately continued to promote the appearance or image of a single global trade mark, thereby generating or increasing confusion on the part of the public concerned as to the commercial origin of goods bearing that mark,

         or

               —

               there exist economic links between the proprietor and that third party, inasmuch as they coordinate their commercial policies or reach an agreement in order to exercise joint control over the use of the trade mark, so that it is possible for them to determine, directly or indirectly, the goods to which the trade mark is affixed and to control the quality of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-809/17: Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/37

         Action brought on 7 December 2017 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT
   (Case T-809/17)
   (2018/C 072/48)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Primarily, declare whether the points awarded to each tenderer are accurate on the basis of the comparison of the bids submitted and whether they comply with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency.

               —

               In the alternative, annul the defendant’s decision of 10 July 2017 concerning the result of the public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

               —

               In the further alternative, annul the public procurement procedures.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency, inasmuch as the defendant applied different approaches to the tenderers in the public procurement procedures, in that it assessed identical activities differently in each procedure. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers by not sending the applicant the information required in the public procurement procedures. (2)

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the transparency of public procurement procedures, inasmuch as the defendant only published the result of the procedure in the Official Journal out of time and without including all the information prescribed by the EU Directive. (3)

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the Directive on public procurement by failing to give notice of the time limit for review, thus limiting the possibility of review. (4)

      (1)  Recitals 1 and 90 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

      (2)  Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (3)  Article 50 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

      (4)  Annex V, Part D (point 16) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-3/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/43

         Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (ANN TAYLOR)
   (Case T-3/18)
   (2018/C 072/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 9 865 651

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 2370/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit the action;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 9 865 651 ‘ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.


title: Case C-677/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA (Appeal — Public services contracts — Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Cascade procedure — Weighting of sub-criteria within the award criteria — Principles of equal opportunity and transparency — Manifest errors of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Loss of opportunity — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for damages)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA
   (Case C-677/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Public services contracts - Provision of external services for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies - Cascade procedure - Weighting of sub-criteria within the award criteria - Principles of equal opportunity and transparency - Manifest errors of assessment - Failure to state reasons - Loss of opportunity - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Claim for damages))
   (2018/C 072/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: N. Bambara, acting as Agent, P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, European Dynamics Belgium SA (represented by: M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 October 2015, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (T-299/11, EU:T:2015:757), in so far as:

                           —

                           in paragraph 2 of the operative part, it orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade, and

                           —

                           in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part, it orders the parties to inform the General Court of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, to transmit to the General Court a statement of their views with supporting figures.

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder.

               3.

               Rejects the damages claim submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA in Case T-299/11.

               4.

               Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-322/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and freedom to conduct a business — Restrictions — Award of new licences for the online operation of gaming — Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Judgment of the Constitutional Court — Whether or not the national court is obliged to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
   (Case C-322/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and freedom to conduct a business - Restrictions - Award of new licences for the online operation of gaming - Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations - Judgment of the Constitutional Court - Whether or not the national court is obliged to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling))
   (2018/C 072/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Global Starnet Ltd

      Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 267(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy is required, in principle, to refer a question for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law even if, in the course of the same national proceedings, the constitutional court of the Member State concerned has assessed the constitutionality of national rules in the light of regulatory parameters with content similar to rules under EU law;

               2.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on persons who are already concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, new conditions for the exercise of their activity by means of an addendum to the existing agreement, inasmuch as the referring court considers that that legislation may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the general interest, is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued, and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA
   (Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))
   (2018/C 072/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra SA (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismiss the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-4/18: Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/44

         Action brought on 9 January 2018 — Holzer y Cia v EUIPO — Annco (AT ANN TAYLOR)
   (Case T-4/18)
   (2018/C 072/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holzer y Cia, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Annco, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ — EU trade mark No 11 197 647

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2017 in Case R 2371/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit the action;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               confirm the validity of the registration of the EUTM No 11 197 647 ‘AT ANN TAYLOR’ for all the products for which the said application sought protection;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in his analysis regarding: the existence of confusing similarity between the conflicting signs and the knowledge of the proprietor of a confusingly similar trademark when filing its application; the intentions of the proprietor at the time of filing its trademark; the probative value given to the evidences submitted by the cancellation applicant and the burden of proof.


title: Case C-529/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Customs Code — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Cross-border transactions between related companies — Advance transfer pricing arrangement — Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/25

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München
   (Case C-529/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Customs Code - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Cross-border transactions between related companies - Advance transfer pricing arrangement - Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period))
   (2018/C 072/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case C-334/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)
   (Case C-334/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’))
   (2018/C 072/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: José Luis Núñez Torreiro

      Defendants: AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible to exclude from compulsory insurance cover injuries and damage that result from the driving of motor vehicles on roads or terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of roads or terrain which, although not suitable for that purpose, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-5/18: Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/45

         Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)
   (Case T-5/18)
   (2018/C 072/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Hamburg BEER COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 15 272 743

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 in Case R 436/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-649/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Scope — Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/26

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others
   (Case C-649/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings))
   (2018/C 072/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtschof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, SC Europa ZV II a.s., SC Europa LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., SC Europa BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o

      Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., Mesto Banská Bystrica

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings, and that such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case C-364/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed — Action for annulment and for damages)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission
   (Case C-364/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed - Action for annulment and for damages))
   (2018/C 072/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Trioplast Industrier AB (represented by: T. Pettersson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, advokater)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case C-571/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence — ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ — Scope — Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence — Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions — Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions — Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/27

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Samet Ardic
   (Case C-571/17 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Scope - Person sentenced to a custodial sentence in final proceedings conducted in his presence - Execution of sentence subsequently suspended in part subject to certain conditions - Subsequent proceedings leading to revocation of the suspension due to non-compliance with those conditions - Revocation proceedings conducted in the absence of the person concerned))
   (2018/C 072/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Samet Ardic

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where a party has appeared in person in criminal proceedings that result in a judicial decision which definitively finds him guilty of an offence and, as a consequence, imposes a custodial sentence the execution of which is subsequently suspended in part, subject to certain conditions, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including subsequent proceedings in which that suspension is revoked on grounds of infringement of those conditions during the probationary period, provided that the revocation decision adopted at the end of those proceedings does not change the nature or the level of the sentence initially imposed.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-372/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country — Scope of that regulation)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
   (Case C-372/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country - Scope of that regulation))
   (2018/C 072/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

      Defendant: Raja Mamisch

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case C-648/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE
   (Case C-648/17)
   (2018/C 072/36)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Balcia Insurance SE

      Defendant: AS Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle?

               2

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger?

      (1)  English special edition: Series I Volume 1972(II) p. 360.


title: Case C-70/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) v European Commission, SES Astra SA
   (Case C-70/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))
   (2018/C 072/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) (represented by: F. J. García Martínez and B. Pérez Conde, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra (represented by F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 November 2015, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia and Retegal v Commission (T-463/13 and T-464/13, not published, EU:T:2015:901);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2014/489/EU of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear the costs incurred by the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia, Spain) and Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal SA (Retegal) in the present appeal and at first instance;

               4.

               Orders SES Astra SA to bears its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-393/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Scope — Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO — Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO — False or misleading indication — PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff — The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ — Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient — Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd
   (Case C-393/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Scope - Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO - Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO - False or misleading indication - PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff - The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ - Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient - Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic))
   (2018/C 072/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

      Defendant: Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Galana NV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 October 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 are to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those provisions covers a situation where a protected designation of origin, such as ‘Champagne’, is used as part of the name under which a foodstuff is sold, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, and where that foodstuff does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications.

               2.

               Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, constitutes exploitation of the reputation of a protected designation of origin, within the meaning of those provisions, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff.

               3.

               Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, does not constitute misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of those provisions.

               4.

               Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as being applicable both to false or misleading indications which are liable to convey a false impression as to the geographical origin of the product concerned and to false or misleading indications relating to the nature or essential qualities of the product.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-6/18: Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/46

         Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)
   (Case T-6/18)
   (2018/C 072/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Hamburg Beer Company’ — Application for registration No 15 272 784

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO 29 September 2017 in Case R 437/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Community designs — Article 110(1) — No protection — ‘Repair’ clause — Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ — Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance — Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause — Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof — Italy, Germany) — Acacia Srl v Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato v Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)
   (Joined Cases C-397/16 and C-435/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Article 110(1) - No protection - ‘Repair’ clause - Concept of ‘component part of a complex product’ - Repair of the complex product so as to restore its original appearance - Measures to be adopted by the user for the purposes of relying on the ‘repair’ clause - Replica car wheel rim identical to the original wheel rim design))
   (2018/C 072/23)
   Languages of the case: German and Italian

      Referring courts

   Corte d'appello di Milano, Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Acacia Srl (C-397/16), Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato (C-435/16)

      Defendants: Pneusgarda Srl, in insolvency, Audi AG (C-397/16), Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (C-435/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it does not make the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the protected design is dependent upon the appearance of the complex product.

               2.

               Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘repair’ clause in it makes the exclusion of protection as a Community design for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance subject to the condition that the replacement part must have an identical visual appearance to that of the part which was originally incorporated into the complex product when it was placed on the market.

               3.

               Article 110(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the ‘repair’ clause contained in that provision, the manufacturer or seller of a component part of a complex product are under a duty of diligence as regards compliance by downstream users with the conditions laid down in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-81/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas — Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms — Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Definition — Discretion of the Member States)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-81/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))
   (2018/C 072/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-419/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Sabine Simma Federspiel v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement for workers — Articles 45 and 49 TFEU — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine — Directives 75/363/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Remuneration of trainee specialist doctors)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Sabine Simma Federspiel v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA
   (Case C-419/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom of movement for workers - Articles 45 and 49 TFEU - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine - Directives 75/363/EEC and 93/16/EEC - Remuneration of trainee specialist doctors))
   (2018/C 072/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabine Simma Federspiel

      Defendants: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Equitalia Nord SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, as well as Article 24(1)(c) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest.

               2.

               Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest, unless the measures laid down by that legislation do not actually contribute to the pursuit of the objectives of protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system and go beyond what is necessary in that regard, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-7/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/46

         Action brought on 8 January 2018 — inforsacom Informationssysteme v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)
   (Case T-7/18)
   (2018/C 072/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: inforsacom Informationssysteme GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Business and technology working as one’ –Application for registration No 15 272 586

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 in Case R 808/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-102/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Driver’s rest periods — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 8(6) and (8) — Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle — Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/8

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-102/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Driver’s rest periods - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 8(6) and (8) - Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle - Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods))
   (2018/C 072/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle.

               2.

               Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-9/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/47

         Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)
   (Case T-9/18)
   (2018/C 072/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Addiko Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Seling, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING’ — Application for registration No 16 133 449

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 in Case R 1090/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-158/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of ‘employment conditions’ — Placement on the administrative status for special service leave — National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/8

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo (Administrative Court No 1, Oviedo — Spain)) — Margarita Isabel Vega González v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-158/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Placement on the administrative status for special service leave - National legislation providing for special leave to be granted, in case of election to public office, only to established civil servants, to the exclusion of non-established civil servants))
   (2018/C 072/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n. 1 de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Margarita Isabel Vega González

      Defendant: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’, referred to in that provision, includes the right for a worker who has been elected to a parliamentary role to benefit from special service leave, provided for by national legislation, under which the employment relationship is suspended such that the worker’s job and his entitlement to promotion are guaranteed until the end of that parliamentary term of office;

               2.

               Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that absolutely precludes granting a fixed-term worker, so that he may hold political office, leave during which the employment relationship is suspended until reinstatement of that worker at the end of the term of office, when that right is conferred on permanent workers.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-12/18: Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/47

         Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)
   (Case T-12/18)
   (2018/C 072/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triumph’ — Application for registration No 6 717 672

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 665/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25;

               —

               reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-178/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) and (3) — Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement — Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company — Criminal conduct of a former director — Criminal conviction — Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director — Evidence — Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)
   (Case C-178/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2) and (3) - Conditions for exclusion from participation in public procurement - Declaration regarding the absence of convictions of former directors of the tendering company - Criminal conduct of a former director - Criminal conviction - Actual and complete dissociation between the tendering company and that director - Evidence - Assessment by the contracting entity of the requirements relating to that obligation))
   (2018/C 072/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Mantovani SpA, Guerrato SpA

      Defendants: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

      Intervening parties: Società Italiana per Condotte d’Acqua SpA, Inso Sistemi per le Infrastrutture Sociali SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 45(2)(c), (d) and (g) of that directive, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows the contracting authority:

               —

               to take into consideration, in accordance with the conditions it has laid down, a criminal conviction of the director of a tendering company, even if the conviction is not yet final, for an offence concerning the professional conduct of that company where the director ceased to perform his duties in the year preceding the publication of the tender notice, and

               —

               to exclude that company from taking part in the tendering procedure at issue, on the ground that, by failing to declare the conviction which was not yet final, it had not fully and effectively dissociated itself from that director’s activities.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-226/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Gas industry — Security of gas supply — Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 — Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers — Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 — Definition of ‘protected customers’ — Article 8(2) — Additional obligation — Article 8(5) — Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level — National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 — Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer
   (Case C-226/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Gas industry - Security of gas supply - Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 - Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers - Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 - Definition of ‘protected customers’ - Article 8(2) - Additional obligation - Article 8(5) - Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level - National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 - Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned))
   (2018/C 072/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

      Intervening parties: Storengy, Total Infrastructures Gaz France (TIGF)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, that imposes on natural gas suppliers a gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not among the protected customers listed in point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 of that regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of the regulation are complied with, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               Article 8(5) of Regulation No 994/2010 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires natural gas suppliers to comply with their obligations to hold gas stocks, in order to guarantee security of supply in the event of crisis, necessarily and exclusively through infrastructure located within the territory of the Member State. In the present case, it is however for the referring court to ascertain whether the power which the competent authority has under the national legislation to take account of the ‘other regulatory instruments’ available to the suppliers concerned ensures that it is actually possible for them to meet their obligations at regional level or at European Union level.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-559/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Cafés Pont SL against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-309/16: Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/10

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2017 by Cafés Pont SL against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-309/16: Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini
   (Case C-559/17 P)
   (2018/C 083/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cafés Pont SL (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Giordano Vini SpA
   By order of 11 January 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.