title: Case T-778/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/41

         Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission
   (Case T-778/17)
   (2018/C 032/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: O. Geiss and D. Tayar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 25 August 2017 in Case SA.35356 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN, ex 2012/N) on State aid implemented by Poland for the company Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A.; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicant’s participation rights, in particular the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the Contested Decision;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to provide the applicant with adequate opportunity to comment on the evidence provided by the State;

                           —

                           the Commission deprived the applicant of its right to submit observations in respect of key documents and findings on the basis of which the Commission adopted the Contested Decision;

                           —

                           the possibility that these omissions affected the outcome of this case cannot be ruled out.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact by applying the wrong test to determine whether the constituent elements of Article 107(1) TFEU were met and applied said (incorrect) test in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU;

                           —

                           the Commission’s finding that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU relies solely on the ‘point-to-point comparison’ test;

                           —

                           the Commission carried out its private investor test assessment after having already decided that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU;

                           —

                           the Commission’s ‘point-to-point comparison’ test is incorrect as a matter of law;

                           —

                           the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment when carrying out its ‘point-to-point comparison’ test assessment, notably by not taking into account relevant information that was available to it at the time it adopted the Contested Decision;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to apply the private investor test in line with the relevant case law and by failing to provide adequate reasoning, therefore infringing Article 107 (1) TFEU;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to apply the private investor test as an integral part of its assessment under Article 107 (1) TFEU in breach of the relevant case law;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take into account relevant information, which was available at the time of adopting the Contested Decision and which a normally prudent and diligent private owner in a situation as close as possible to that of the State would not a priori have ignored;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s finding of incompatible aid is based on erroneous findings and is vitiated by internal contradictions;

                           —

                           the Commission erred in fact in finding that the State funds only benefited investors.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law when calculating the amount of State aid by failing to carry out its own assessment and to provide adequate reasoning;

                           —

                           the Commission’s finding of overcompensation for the period between September 2005 and October 2007 is vitiated by fundamental errors of assessment;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take into account relevant information that was available at the time of the Contested Decision.


title: Case T-737/17: Action brought on 7 November 2017 — Wattiau v Parliament

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/33

         Action brought on 7 November 2017 — Wattiau v Parliament
   (Case T-737/17)
   (2018/C 032/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Francis Wattiau (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision to make him liable for the amount of EUR 843,01, included in the breakdown of expenses No 244 from the settlements office;

               —

               Annul, where necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 2 August 2017;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raised an objection of illegality against the agreement concluded between the European Union and the Federation of Luxembourg Hospitals increasing by 15 % the medical expenses incurred by the members of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) in Luxembourg. That objection of illegality is based on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and Articles 12 and 14 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound financial management set out in Article 30 of Regulation No 966/2012 and Article 43 of the Joint Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Union.


title: Case C-615/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) — Rights to use immovable property — Exemptions — Scope — Concept of ‘negotiation’)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-615/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) - Rights to use immovable property - Exemptions - Scope - Concept of ‘negotiation’))
   (2018/C 032/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giovanna Judith Kerr

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Operative part of the order

   Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘negotiation’, within the meaning of the latter provision, may relate to an activity, such as that developed by the applicant in the main proceedings, provided that that activity is that of an intermediary paid to provide a service to one of the parties to a contract concerning financial transactions in respect of title to property, that service consisting of taking the necessary steps to ensure that the vendor and buyer sign that contract, without the intermediary himself signing the contract and, in any event, without that intermediary having any interest in the content of that contract. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are fulfilled in the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-784/17: Action brought on 4 December 2017 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/43

         Action brought on 4 December 2017 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
   (Case T-784/17)
   (2018/C 032/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application for annulment admissible and well founded;

         Consequently,

               —

               Declare that (i) the decision of date unknown of the European Parliament not to accept the bid made by Strabag Belgium for the Framework contract for general contractor works in European Parliament buildings (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) in Brussels, which decision was notified by letter of 24 November 2017, and (ii) the decision of date unknown of the European Parliament to award the Framework contract for general contractor works in European Parliament buildings in Brussels (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) to five tenderers other than Strabag Belgium, and

               —

               Uphold the request made by Strabag Belgium for the production of the following documents:

                           —

                           documents from the procurement file in which contacts between the Parliament and the tenderers concerning abnormal prices were reported in accordance with Article 160(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union;

                           —

                           from the decision awarding the contract to five other tenderers and not selecting the bid made by Strabag Belgium of date unknown;

                           —

                           from the tender analysis report;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay all the costs, including procedural compensation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement:

               (i)

               of Article 110(5) 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) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), providing that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 210 concerning details on the award criteria, including the most economically advantageous tender;

               (ii)

               of Article 151 as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 342, p. 7), setting out the rules applicable to abnormally low tenders, and

               (iii)

               of Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, enshrining the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts.


title: Case C-131/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial — Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
   (Case C-131/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2018/C 032/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hélder José Cunha Martins

      Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Oporto, Portugal).

      (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-785/17: Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/44

         Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM)
   (Case T-785/17)
   (2018/C 032/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Time Gate GmbH (Köln, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM’ – International registration designating the European Union No 891 276

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 974/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 September 2017 (R 974/2016-5) and therefore allow the registration of the trademark Sportswear Company BIG SAM;

               —

               order Time Gate GmbH to bear its own costs;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Acquiescence pursuant Article 54 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion of signs.


title: Case C-232/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — VE v WD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/8

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — VE v WD
   (Case C-232/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 032/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VE

      Defendant: WD

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Central District Court, Buda, Hungary), by decision of 10 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-787/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/45

         Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Parfümerie Akzente v EUIPO (GlamHair)
   (Case T-787/17)
   (2018/C 032/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (Pfedelbach, 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: European Union word mark ‘GlamHair’ — Application No 15 211 956

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 82/2017-2

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


title: Case T-740/17: Action brought on 2 November 2017 — DEI v European Commission

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/33

         Action brought on 2 November 2017 — DEI v European Commission
   (Case T-740/17)
   (2018/C 032/47)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou Α.Ε. (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP) — Greece: Alleged State Aid to Aluminium S.A. in the form of electricity tariffs below cost following Arbitration Decision, in so far as it cancels the Commission’s acts of 12 June 2014 and 25 March 2015;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP), in so far as it holds that no State aid was granted to Aluminium and, consequently, that the Commission was not required to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2017 (C(2017) 5622 final) in Case SA.38101 (2015/NN)(ex 2013/CP), in so far as it holds that DEI’s complaint, concerning the State aid which was granted on the basis of the grounds of Decision 346/2012 of the RAE [the Greek Energy Regulator], had become without object as a result of Decision 1/2013 of the Arbitration Tribunal in the context of the permanent arbitration of the RAE; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay DEI’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Manifest error of law in the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-228/16 P and contradiction of the decision in that case.

               2.

               Inadequate execution of the Commission’s obligations arising from Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and infringement of that article and of the right to be heard, and infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, contradiction and breach of the obligation to examine all relevant matters of fact and law with respect to the finding that the Arbitration Agreement, as a consequence of which the abovementioned arbitration Decision 1/2013 was issued, set ‘clear and objective parameters’ which ‘limited the discretion of the arbitrators’ and had as a ‘logical consequence’ the finally determined electricity tariff.

               4.

               Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of the principle of the prudent private investor and of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, as concerns the finding that the electricity tariff determined by the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal is the ‘logical consequence of properly defined parameters in the Arbitration Agreement’.

               5.

               Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, with respect to the finding that the Commission did not have to engage in complex economic assessments and a manifest error of law and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances in so far as the Commission failed to examine crucial issues with respect to finding whether or not there was State Aid.

               6.

               Manifest error of law in the application of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances as concerns the application of the test of the prudent private market economy operator.

               7.

               Manifest error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU, infringement of the obligation to state sufficient reasons and a manifest error of assessment with respect to the factual circumstances as regards the decision by the Commission not to further investigate the complaint made by DEI in 2012, pursuant to Article 108 (2) TFEU, on the basis of the finding that that complaint ‘had become without object’ following the issuing of Decision 1/2013 of the Arbitration Tribunal.

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


title: Case C-243/17: Order of the Court of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ — Scope of application)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/8

         Order of the Court of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues
   (Case C-243/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ - Scope of application))
   (2018/C 032/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP

      Defendant: António da Silva Rodrigues

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an irregularity which is neither continuous nor repeated, the limitation period of four years provided for in that provision runs from the date the irregularity was committed.

               2.

               The second, third and fourth questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-788/17: Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/45

         Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Szabados v EUIPO — Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (Separ) (MicroSepar)
   (Case T-788/17)
   (2018/C 032/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MicroSepar’ — Application No 14 576 532

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2017 in Case R 2420/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-746/17: Action brought on 13 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jump)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/35

         Action brought on 13 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jump)
   (Case T-746/17)
   (2018/C 032/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber, A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat jump’ EU trade mark No 4 729 075

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Case R 2236/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 4 729 075

               —

               dismiss the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-796/17: Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/46

         Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)
   (Case T-796/17)
   (2018/C 032/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W Rebernik, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MOULDPRO’ — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2017 in Case R 2153/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Unlawful registration by an agent or representative, CTMR article 51(1)(b), in conjunction with article 8(3);

               —

               Earlier non registered trademark rights used in the course of trade CTMR article 53(1)(c), in conjunction with article 8(4);

               —

               The EUTM was applied in bad faith by the proprietor CMTR article 52(1)(b).


title: Case T-213/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FREE STYLE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)
   (Case T-213/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FREE STYLE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Equal treatment))
   (2018/C 104/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Obergriesbach, Germany) (represented by E. Warnke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 (Case R 378/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elho Business & Sport and El Corte Inglés.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-2/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 January 2018 — A group of Members of the Seimas

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 January 2018 — A group of Members of the Seimas
   (Case C-2/18)
   (2018/C 104/24)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A group of Members of the Seimas (Lithuanian Parliament)

      Other party: the Lithuanian Parliament

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 148(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of strengthening the negotiating powers of raw milk producers and preventing unfair commercial practices, and taking into account certain particular structural features of the milk and milk products sector of the Member State and changes in the market for milk, it does not prohibit the establishment of a national legal regulatory framework which restricts the freedom of contracting parties to negotiate the purchase price of raw milk in the sense that a raw milk buyer is prohibited from paying different raw milk prices to raw milk sellers from the same group, grouped according to the volume of milk sold, who do not belong to a recognised milk producers’ organisation, for raw milk of the same quality and composition as that delivered to the buyer via the same method, and, thus, the parties are unable to agree on a different raw milk purchase price by taking into account any other factors?

               2.

               Can Article 148(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of strengthening the negotiating powers of raw milk producers and preventing unfair commercial practices, and taking into account certain particular structural features of the milk and milk products sector of the Member State and changes in the market for milk, it does not prohibit the establishment of a national legal regulatory framework which restricts the freedom of contracting parties to negotiate the purchase price of raw milk in the sense that a raw milk buyer is prohibited from unjustifiably reducing the purchase price of the raw milk, and a reduction of the price by more than 3 % is possible only if a State-empowered institution recognises such a reduction as being justified?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 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 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).


title: Case C-28/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 January 2018 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG
   (Case C-28/18)
   (2018/C 104/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Defendant: Deutsche Bahn AG

      Question referred

   Must Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (the SEPA Regulation) (1) be interpreted to mean that the payee is prohibited from making payment under the SEPA direct debit scheme dependent on the payer’s place of residence being in the Member State in which the payee also has his establishment (residence), if payment in a different way, for example with a credit card, is also allowed?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 94, p. 22.


title: Case T-212/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark FRee STyLe — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)
   (Case T-212/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark FRee STyLe - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Equal treatment))
   (2018/C 104/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Obergriesbach, Germany) (represented by E. Warnke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 (Case R 377/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elho Business & Sport and El Corte Inglés.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-641/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2017 — College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München III

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2017 — College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München III
   (Case C-641/17)
   (2018/C 112/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: College Pension Plan of British Columbia

      Defendant: Finanzamt München III

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the freedom of movement of capital under Article 63(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which a non-resident institution operating an occupational pension scheme whose essential structure is similar to a German pension fund does not receive any relief from tax on income from capital in respect of dividends received, whereas such dividend distributions to domestic pension funds do not result in any increase in their corporation tax liability, or only a comparatively small one, because the latter are able to reduce their taxable profit in a tax assessment procedure by deducting the amounts reserved to meet their pension payment obligations and to neutralise the tax on income from capital through a set-off, and also receive a refund in the event that the amount of corporation tax payable is less than the amount set-off?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is yes: is the restriction of the free movement of capital through Paragraph 32(1) No 2 of the Law on corporation tax permissible with respect to third countries under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 64(1) TFEU because it relates to the provision of financial services?


title: Case T-338/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Zink v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — No payment of the allowance for a number of years following an administrative error — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable period of time)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — Zink v Commission
   (Case T-338/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - No payment of the allowance for a number of years following an administrative error - Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable period of time))
   (2018/C 134/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F-77/15, EU:F:2016:74), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016, Zink v Commission (F-77/15);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of 23 July 2014 of the Office for ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of the European Commission to the extent that, pursuant to that decision, the Commission had refused to pay Mr Richard Zink the expatriation allowance relating to the period between 1 September 2007 and 30 April 2009;

               3.

               Dismisses, as to the remainder, the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, registered as Case F-77/15;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal and at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-76/18: Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CN v Parliament

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/25

         Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CN v Parliament
   (Case T-76/18)
   (2018/C 134/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CN (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application admissible;

               —

               Order the defendant to produce the findings of the APA Committee, the minutes of the testimony of the witnesses heard by the APA Committee and the file sent to the President of the European Parliament under Article 10 of the internal rules of the APA Committee;

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay EUR 68 500 in compensation for the applicant’s various non-pecuniary losses;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sound administration, the right to be heard and the rights of the defence, the duty of care, which vitiates the contested decision in this case, namely the decision of the European Parliament to reject the applicant’s application for assistance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of Article 31 of the Charter, Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the duty of care.


title: Case T-260/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Iberdrola v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-260/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2018/C 134/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

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

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The order of 24 November 2017, Iberdrola v Commission (T-260/15 R), is revoked.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


201805250081897422018/C 200/125652016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419101121Case C-565/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1010120180419EN0012101112Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
   (Case C-565/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)’2018/C 200/12Language of the case: Greek
      Referring court

   Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

      Operative part of the judgment

   In a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where the parents of a minor child, who are habitually resident with the latter in a Member State, have lodged, in the name of that child, an application for permission to renounce an inheritance before the courts of another Member State, Article 12(3)(b) of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning:

            —

            the joint lodging of proceedings by the parents of the child before the courts of their choice is an unequivocal acceptance by them of that court;

            —

            a prosecutor who, according to the national law, has the capacity of a party to the proceedings commenced by the parents, is a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003. Opposition by that party to the choice of jurisdiction made by the parents of the child in question, after the date on which the court was seised, precludes the acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at that date from being established. In the absence of such opposition, the agreement of that party may be regarded as implicit and the condition of the unequivocal acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at the date on which that court was seised may be held to be satisfied; and

            —

            the fact that the residence of the deceased at the time of his death, his assets, which are the subject matter of the succession, and the liabilities of the succession were situated in the Member State of the chosen courts leads, in the absence of matters that might demonstrate that the prorogation of jurisdiction was liable to have a prejudicial impact on the child’s position, to the conclusion that that prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


201806080151931282018/C 221/309162016TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423252511Case T-916/16: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Winkler v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Measure not open to challenge — Act not having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2510120180423EN0030251251Order of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Winkler v Commission
   (Case T-916/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Officials — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Measure not open to challenge — Act not having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility)’2018/C 221/30Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission note of 20 April 2016 on a proposal concerning the additional pensionable years to be taken into consideration in the European Union pension scheme, following a request for transfer of pension rights acquired by the applicant before entering the service of the Union and, secondly, to obtain compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful acts allegedly committed by the Commission when processing that request for transfer.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            Bernd Winkler is ordered to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar — Appeal directed against the grounds — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P)
      (Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar - Appeal directed against the grounds - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use))
      (2018/C 328/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh, J. Blum and C. MacLeod, Solicitors) (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-95/17 P)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-84/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société des produits Nestlé SA, (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-85/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-95/17 P)

         Interveners in support of the appelant in Case C-84/17 P: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeals;

                  2.

                  Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA, European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 4.

         OJ C 161, 22.5.2017, p. 9.


title: Case T-422/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission
      (Case T-422/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, L. Parpala, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-420/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/18

      Action brought on 10 July 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission
      (Case T-420/18)
      (2018/C 341/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States), J.P. Morgan Services LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Lester QC, D. Piccinin and D. Heaton, Barristers, N. French, B. Tormey, N. Frey and D. Das, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in its entirety, with the consequence that no version of the infringement decision can be published until the General Court has decided the infringement annulment application;

                  —

                  alternatively, partially annul the contested decision, upholding the redactions that the European Commission rejected as set out in pleas 2 to 4; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the applicants costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 2745 final of 27 April 2018 on objections to the disclosure of information by publication submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29) on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD).
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence by rejecting the applicants’ request that the publication of any non-confidential version of the decision of 7 December 2016 (‘the Infringement Decision’) (1) should be delayed pending the determination of the applicants’ application to the General Court to annul the Infringement Decision. The Infringement Decision would have been taken itself in breach of the presumption of innocence, as the judgment of 10 November 2017, Icap and Others v Commission (T-180/15, EU:T:2017:795, paragraphs 253 to 269), establishes. Accordingly, the applicants would be in the same position as a non-addressee: they would not enjoy all the usual guarantees accorded for the exercise of the rights of defence in the normal course of proceedings resulting in a decision on the merits of the case. The applicants claim that this would prevent any publication of the Infringement Decision until the General Court has completed a review of the Commission’s findings.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, through the hearing officer, acted beyond its powers under Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU (‘the Terms of Reference of the Hearing Officer’) (2) in purporting to overrule a decision by DG Competition not to publish part of the Infringement Decision (and in relying upon that unlawful decision to decline to prevent publication of analogous parts of the Infringement Decision). The Commission, acting via the hearing officer, would lack the power to do so (see judgement of 15 July 2015, Pilkington Group v Commission, T-462/12, EU:T:2015:508, paragraph 31).

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in assessing the applicants’ claims under Article 8(2) of the Terms of Reference of the Hearing Officer and thereby failed to respect professional secrecy as required under that provision, Article 339 TFEU and Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (3) The Commission would have erred in finding that the contested material did not meet the test for information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy (see judgment of 30 May 2006, Bank Austria Creditansalt v Commission, T-198/03, EU:T:2006:136) and for other reasons.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle governing the protection of the identity of individuals in respect of a former applicants’ employee and persons in applicants’ management, including the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicants claim that the Commission proposed to publish information that would or may reveal the identity of that former employee and the alleged state of mind of applicants’ employees at the time.

         (1)  Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

         (2)  Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

         (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).


title: Case C-675/16 P: Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2018 — Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guess? IP Holder LP

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/10

      Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2018 — Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guess? IP Holder LP
      (Case C-675/16 P) (1)

      (2018/C 341/13)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-452/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Petrov and Others v Parliament (Member of the European Parliament — Refusal of access to the buildings of the Parliament — Third-country national — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Admissibility of a plea — Discrimination on grounds of political opinions — Equal treatment — Misuse of powers)

text:
               15.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Petrov and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-452/15) (1)

   ((Member of the European Parliament - Refusal of access to the buildings of the Parliament - Third-country national - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Admissibility of a plea - Discrimination on grounds of political opinions - Equal treatment - Misuse of powers))
   (2018/C 013/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Andrei Petrov (Saint Petersburg, Russia), Fedor Biryukov, (Moscow, Russia) and Alexander Sotnichenko (Saint Petersburg) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 16 June 2015 refusing the applicants access to its premises.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Messrs Andrei Petrov, Fedor Biryukovand and Alexander Sotnichenko to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case T-760/17: Action brought on 20 November 2017 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/55

         Action brought on 20 November 2017 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)
   (Case T-760/17)
   (2018/C 022/72)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meesenburg Großhandel KG (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Freiherr von Oldershausen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triotherm+’ — Application No 15 186 471

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 1786/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-734/17: Action brought on 3 November 2017 — ViaSat v Commission

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/48

         Action brought on 3 November 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
   (Case T-734/17)
   (2018/C 022/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

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

               2.

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


title: Case T-774/17: Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del Mar)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/60

         Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del Mar)
   (Case T-774/17)
   (2018/C 022/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain) José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J.L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ — European Union trade mark No 5 889 126

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1618/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ No 5 889 126 invalid;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-509/16: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Baradel and Others v FEI

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/62

         Order of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Baradel and Others v FEI
   (Case T-509/16) (1)

   (2018/C 022/83)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-72/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) — Deduction of input tax — Compulsory content of invoices — Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16)
   (Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) - Deduction of input tax - Compulsory content of invoices - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))
   (2018/C 022/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundefinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L. (C-374/16), Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (C-375/16)

      Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), Igor Butin (C-375/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 226(5) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to the condition that the address where the issuer of an invoice carries out its economic activity must be indicated on the invoice.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-427/16 and C-428/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria AD v Yordan Kotsev (C 427/16), and FrontEx International EAD v Emil Yanakiev (C-428/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Freedom to provide services — Setting of minimum fee amounts by a lawyers’ professional organisation — Court prohibited from ordering reimbursement of fees in an amount less than those minimum amounts — National legislation considering value added tax (VAT) to form part of the price of a service provided in the performance of professional activities)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria AD v Yordan Kotsev (C 427/16), and FrontEx International EAD v Emil Yanakiev (C-428/16)
   (Joined Cases C-427/16 and C-428/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Freedom to provide services - Setting of minimum fee amounts by a lawyers’ professional organisation - Court prohibited from ordering reimbursement of fees in an amount less than those minimum amounts - National legislation considering value added tax (VAT) to form part of the price of a service provided in the performance of professional activities))
   (2018/C 022/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski rayonen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria AD (C-427/16), FrontEx International EAD (C-428/16)

      Defendants: Yordan Kotsev (C-427/16), Emil Yanakiev (C-428/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, does not allow a lawyer and his client to agree remuneration in an amount below the minimum amount laid down in a regulation issued by a lawyers’ professional organisation, such as the Vissh advokatski savet (Supreme Council of the Legal Profession, Bulgaria), without that lawyer being subject to a disciplinary procedure, and, secondly, which does not authorise the courts to order reimbursement of fees in an amount less than that minimum amount, is capable of restricting competition in the internal market within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. It is for the referring court to confirm whether such legislation, in the light of the specific detailed rules for the application thereof, actually meets legitimate objectives and whether the restrictions thus imposed are limited to what is necessary to ensure that those legitimate objectives are given effect.

               2.

               Article 101(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which individuals and sole traders obtain reimbursement of lawyers’ remuneration, ordered by a national court, if they have been defended by a legal adviser.

               3.

               Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which VAT forms an inseparable component part of a registered lawyers’ fees, if that legislation leads to double taxation of those fees in respect of VAT.

      (1)  OJ C C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-259/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Zoltán Rózsavölgyi, Zoltánné Rózsavölgyi v Unicredit Leasing Hungary Zrt., Unicredit Leasing Immo Truck Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Zoltán Rózsavölgyi, Zoltánné Rózsavölgyi v Unicredit Leasing Hungary Zrt., Unicredit Leasing Immo Truck Zrt.
   (Case C-259/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency - Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 032/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Zoltán Rózsavölgyi, Zoltánné Rózsavölgyi

      Defendants: Unicredit Leasing Hungary Zrt., Unicredit Leasing Immo Truck Zrt.

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Central District Court, Buda, Hungary), by decision of 31 March 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-35/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2017 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in connection with the goods in question — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2017 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
   (Case T-35/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in connection with the goods in question - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2018/C 032/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2015 (Case R 2232/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2015 (Case R 2232/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio, SA and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe;

               3.

               Orders Vieta Audio to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-893/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MI PAD — Earlier EU word mark IPAD — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Apple (MI PAD)
   (Case T-893/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MI PAD - Earlier EU word mark IPAD - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services))
   (2018/C 032/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 363/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Xiaomi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Xiaomi, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-770/17: Action brought on 24 November 2017 — Beats Electronics v EUIPO — TrekStor (i.Beat)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/40

         Action brought on 24 November 2017 — Beats Electronics v EUIPO — TrekStor (i.Beat)
   (Case T-770/17)
   (2018/C 032/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: M. Petersenn, lawyer, I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, Hong-Kong)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat’ — EU trade mark No 5 009 139

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Joined Cases R 2175/2016-4 and R 2213/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the Applicant’s appeal recorded under number R 2175/2016-4 and allowed the Contested Mark to remain registered for MP3-players, in particular based on USB flash memory with mini hard discs;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of 22 December 2017 in Case E-1/17 — Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Absolute bar to proceeding with a case — State aid — Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

text:
               12.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/4

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 22 December 2017
   in Case E-1/17
   Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

      (Absolute bar to proceeding with a case — State aid — Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

   (2018/C 130/04)
   In Case E-1/17, Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015 closing a formal investigation concerning State aid granted to Nettbuss Sør AS, which was published in EEA Supplement no. 59/1 to the Official Journal on 27 October 2016, the Court, composed of, Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 22 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Konkurrenten.no AS is to bear its own costs, and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the County of Aust-Agder and Nettbuss AS.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears its own costs.


title: Case T-116/07: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — France v Commission

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/39

         Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — France v Commission
   (Case T-116/07) (1)

   (2018/C 134/55)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-288/07: Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — Alcan France v Commission

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/39

         Order of the General Court of 22 February 2018 — Alcan France v Commission
   (Case T-288/07) (1)

   (2018/C 134/56)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


201807060541994142018/C 259/493752017TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180612353622Case T-375/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Blue — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN3520120180612EN0049352362Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)
   (Case T-375/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Blue — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 259/49Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Klaudia Patricia Fenyves (residing in Hevesvezekény, Hungary) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 (Case R 1974/2016-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Blue as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Ms Klaudia Patricia Fenyves to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


201807060471994292018/C 259/633322018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528474821Case T-332/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN4710120180528EN0063471482Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)
   (Case T-332/18)2018/C 259/63Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MARRY ME’ — Application for registration No 15 958 226

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 806/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201807060091994332018/C 259/22642018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180201161611Case C-64/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Zoran Maksimovic
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN1610120180201EN0022161161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Zoran Maksimovic
   (Case C-64/18)2018/C 259/22Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Zoran Maksimovic

      Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

      Interested party: Finanzpolizei

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (
                  1
               ) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure by the hiring-out entity to make documents relating to pay available to the third-party employer, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

            2.

            If Question 1 itself is answered in the negative:
            Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines in the case of infringements of formal requirements in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.


201807060521993532018/C 259/643332018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528484811Case T-333/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN4810120180528EN0064481481Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)
   (Case T-333/18)2018/C 259/64Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘marry me’ — Application for registration No 15 952 468

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 807/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.