title: Case T-588/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/32

         Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-588/17)
   (2017/C 369/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement, comprising:

                           —

                           2 184 271,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default if its contractual obligations under Article 3.01 and 4.01 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement.


title: Joined Cases T-504/16 and T-505/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the scale of basic salaries — Calculation method — Economic and financial crisis)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Joined Cases T-504/16 and T-505/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the scale of basic salaries - Calculation method - Economic and financial crisis))
   (2017/C 369/25)
   Language of the cases: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 485 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (Case T-504/16); and Esther Badiola (Luxembourg) and the 15 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (Case T-505/16) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, and subsequently G. Faedo and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions, contained in the salary statements for February 2013 and the subsequent months, applying to the applicants the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 18 December 2012, the decision of the EIB Management Committee of 29 January 2013, the article published online on 5 February 2013 and the information note of 15 February 2013 informing staff of the adoption of those two decisions and, secondly, an order requiring the EIB to pay to the applicants a sum corresponding to the difference between the amount of remuneration paid pursuant to those decisions and the amount of the remuneration due under the scheme resulting from the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 22 September 2009, together with damages to compensate for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of their loss of purchasing power and uncertainty about the changes made to their remuneration.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) applying the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 18 December 2012 and the decision of the EIB Management Committee of 29 January 2013 contained in the salary statements for February 2013 and the subsequent months of Mr Jean-Pierre Bodson and the other members of the EIB staff whose names are listed in the annex in Case T-504/16, on the one hand, and of Mrs Esther Badiola and the other members of the EIB staff whose names are listed in the annex in Case T-505/16, on the other hand;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-41/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-585/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Skareby v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Freedom of expression — Duty of loyalty — Serious prejudice to the legitimate interests of the Union — Refusal of permission to publish an article — Request that the text be amended — Article 17a of the Staff Regulations — Subject matter of the action — Decision rejecting the administrative complaint)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Skareby v EEAS
   (Case T-585/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Freedom of expression - Duty of loyalty - Serious prejudice to the legitimate interests of the Union - Refusal of permission to publish an article - Request that the text be amended - Article 17a of the Staff Regulations - Subject matter of the action - Decision rejecting the administrative complaint))
   (2017/C 369/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of the decision of 5 June 2015 of the EEAS refusing permission to publish an article and requesting that changes be made to two paragraphs of the proposed text, and (ii) ‘so far as necessary’, annulment of the decision of 18 December 2015 of the EEAS rejecting the complaint brought against the original decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Carina Skareby to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-15/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-481/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 August 2017 — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-481/17)
   (2017/C 369/06)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nikolay Yanchev

      Defendant: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is paragraph 16 of Decision C(2011) 863 final of the European Commission of 11 February 2011, adopted pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, declaring State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporate tax relief to be compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the light of the Commission’s powers, on the one hand, and of the principles of procedural autonomy and legal certainty, on the other, it is permissible to apply a national rule under which the period laid down in that paragraph for reviewing whether the conditions governing the State aid granted have been met is to be construed only as being indicative and not as being an exclusionary period?

               2.

               Are paragraphs 7, 8, 14 and 45 of the Commission Decision, taken together and construed teleologically and in the light of the principle of proportionality, to be interpreted as meaning that the lawful receipt/lawful claiming of the aid may be made dependent only on compliance with the national provisions concerning aid implementation specifically mentioned in that Commission Decision, or is it permissible also to require compliance with further conditions under national law which do not pursue the objectives served by the granting of the State aid?


title: Case T-540/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/24

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-540/17)
   (2017/C 369/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement in its right of subrogation comprising:

                           —

                           52 657 141,77 euro the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any given relevant period) of (i) the relevant interbank rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative to (i), and if the Court finds that the EU is not subrogated to the rights of the Bank, payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement comprising:

                           —

                           52 657 141,77 euro, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any given relevant period) of (i) the relevant interbank rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               in any event, for payment of the amount due to either the EU or the Bank, as the case may be, for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any given relevant period) of (i) the relevant interbank rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Distribution Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-541/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/25

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-541/17)
   (2017/C 369/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               For payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement in its right of subrogation comprising:

                           —

                           3 383 971,66 Swiss franc (CHF) and 38 934 400,51 euro, the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           Further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the aggregate of (i) 2,5 % (250 basis points) and (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01, until payment is made;

                           —

                           All applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative to the order above, and if the Court finds that the EU is not subrogated to the rights of the Bank, payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement comprising:

                           —

                           3 383 971,66 CHF and 38 934 400,51 euro, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date as to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           Further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the aggregate of (i) 2,5 % (250 basis points) and (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01, until payment is made;

                           —

                           All applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to either the EU or the Bank, as the case may be, for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           All principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           Contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the aggregate of (i) 2,5 % (250 basis points) and (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01, from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Electricity Transmission Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-305/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark LOVE TO LOUNGE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Primark Holdings (LOVE TO LOUNGE)
   (Case T-305/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark LOVE TO LOUNGE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Berger, lawyers)

      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: Primark Holdings (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and G. Hussey, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 (Case R 489/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung and Primark Holdings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-90/17: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/19

         Order of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)
   (Case T-90/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 369/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gelinova Group Srl (Tezze di Vazzola, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2016 (Case R 207/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cloetta Italia Srl and Gelinova Group Srl, formerly Milk & Fruit Srl.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Gelinova Group Srl is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-327/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational programme — Legal basis — Transitional provisions — Application of financial corrections after the programming period concerned — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Ne bis in idem — Proportionality)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-327/15) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational programme - Legal basis - Transitional provisions - Application of financial corrections after the programming period concerned - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Ne bis in idem - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 369/09)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 1936 final of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-591/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/35

         Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-591/17)
   (2017/C 369/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement, comprising:

                           —

                           404 425,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-393/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Università del Salento v Commission (Arbitration clause — General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ — Specific programme ‘Criminal Justice’ — Recovery of sums paid by the Commission under a grant agreement — Set-off of amounts owed — Partial reclassification of the action — Application for a declaration that there is no contractual claim)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Università del Salento v Commission
   (Case T-393/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ - Specific programme ‘Criminal Justice’ - Recovery of sums paid by the Commission under a grant agreement - Set-off of amounts owed - Partial reclassification of the action - Application for a declaration that there is no contractual claim))
   (2017/C 369/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Università del Salento (Lecce, Italy) (represented by: F. Vetrò, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, L. Di Paolo, F. Moro, L. Cappelletti and O. Verheecke, and subsequently L. Di Paolo, F. Moro and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of Commission Decision D/C4 — B.2 — 005817 of 4 May 2015, by which the applicant’s claim in respect of the implementation of a contract in a first project, Entice (Explaining the Nature of Technological Innovation in Chinese Enterprises), was set off against the applicant’s debt in respect of the implementation of a contract in a second project, entitled ‘Judicial Training and Research on EU crimes against environment and maritime pollution’; (ii) annulment of all other measures, preliminary to, consecutive to or, in any event, connected with that decision; and (iii) an order requiring the Commission to pay to the applicant the amounts owed to it for the implementation of the Entice project; and, secondly, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission in respect of the implementation of the second project is non-existent.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Università del Salento to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-117/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — Proximus v Council (Interim measures — Public procurement — Negotiated procedure — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — Proximus v Council
   (Case T-117/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public procurement - Negotiated procedure - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 369/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and S. Cholakova, acting as Agents, and by P. de Bandt, P. Teerlinck and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, (i), suspending implementation of the decision of the Council to award the framework contract to another tenderer and, (ii), suspending the implementation of the framework contract concluded between the Council and the successful tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-527/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Waisman and Others v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/20

         Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Waisman and Others v SRB
   (Case T-527/17)
   (2017/C 369/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Alejandro Claudio Waisman (Buenos Aires, Argentina) and 158 other applicants (represented by: J. De Castro Martín, M. Azpitarte Sánchez and J. Ruiz de Villa Jubany, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               In accordance with Article 263 TFEU, annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board concerning the Banco Popular Español (SRB/EES/2017/08);

               —

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

               —

               Order SRB to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-604/17: Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Thun v EUIPO (Figurine representing a fish)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/35

         Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Thun v EUIPO (Figurine representing a fish)
   (Case T-604/17)
   (2017/C 369/49)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: B. Giordano, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Design at issue: Community design — (Figurine representing a fish) — Application for registration No 336 805-0059

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 in Case R 1680/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant the application for restitutio in integrum;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs.


title: Case T-544/17: Action brought on 5 August 2017 — Imabe Ibérica v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/29

         Action brought on 5 August 2017 — Imabe Ibérica v SRB
   (Case T-544/17)
   (2017/C 369/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Imabe Ibérica, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Aguirre de Cárcer Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Acknowledge the lodging of the action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 made by the Single Resolution Board in its Expanded Executive Session of 7 June 2017, adopting the resolution scheme concerning the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., in compliance with the provisions of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and, after having allowed access to all the documents in the file and given the possibility of making further claims, annul or revoke the contested decision, reinstating in full the legal effect of the applicant’s economic rights, in accordance with the requirements of full compensation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-421/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Oma — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Oma)
   (Case T-421/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beste Oma - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 (Case R 91/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Oma as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case C-495/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii
   (Case C-495/17)
   (2017/C 369/07)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Prahova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cartrans Spedition SRL

      Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of the VAT exemption for transport operations and services relating to the export of goods, in accordance with Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, does a TIR carnet certified by the customs authorities of the country of destination constitute a document which proves that the goods transported were indeed exported, taking into account the procedure for such a customs transit document laid down in the Transit Manual (TIR procedure) No TAXUD/1873/2007 by the Customs Code Committee — Transit section, Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission?

               2.

               Does Article 153 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a tax practice which requires a taxpayer to prove that goods transported were exported exclusively by means of a customs export declaration, with the result that the right to deduct VAT for transport services in respect of goods exported will be refused in the absence of that declaration, even if a TIR carnet certified by the customs authorities of the country of destination exists?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-542/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/26

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-542/17)
   (2017/C 369/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               For payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement in its right of subrogation comprising:

                           —

                           20 609 429,45 euro, the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           Further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           All applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative to (i), and if the Court finds that the EU is not subrogated to the rights of the Bank, payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement comprising:

                           —

                           20 609 429,45 euro, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           Further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           All applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional costs accruing from the due date until payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to either the EU or the Bank, as the case may be, for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           All principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           Contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), from the due date of each instalment to the date of eventual payment by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 8.01 and 8.02 of the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-574/17: Action brought on 23 August 2017 — UD v Commission

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/32

         Action brought on 23 August 2017 — UD v Commission
   (Case T-574/17)
   (2017/C 369/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: UD (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 2 November 2016 by which the Commission refused to grant prior authorisation for the reimbursement of medical costs relating to the applicant’s medical treatment;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment vitiating the ground for refusal to reimburse based on the alleged lack of scientific validity of the treatment at issue.


title: Case T-422/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Mama — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Mama)
   (Case T-422/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beste Mama - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 (Case R 95/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Mama as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-608/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Grupo Bimbo/EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/36

         Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Grupo Bimbo/EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)
   (Case T-608/17)
   (2017/C 369/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (México, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TAKIS FUEGO’ — Application for registration No 11 841 087

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2017 in Case R 2300/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision;

               —

               order the intervener to bear the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-624/17: Action brought on 13 September 2017 — Poland v Commission

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/38

         Action brought on 13 September 2017 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-624/17)
   (2017/C 369/52)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector, notified under document C(2017) 4449; and

               —

               order the European Commission 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 that the Commission incorrectly classified the Polish tax on the retail sector as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of a manifest error in its assessment of the condition of selectivity.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains a deficient and inadequate statement of reasons.


title: Case T-590/17: Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/34

         Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria
   (Case T-590/17)
   (2017/C 369/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

               —

               for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement, comprising:

                           —

                           726 942,81 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made;

                           —

                           all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

               —

               In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising:

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

               For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement.


title: Case T-103/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Alpenschmaus — Earlier EU word mark ALPEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)
   (Case T-103/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Alpenschmaus - Earlier EU word mark ALPEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially E. Strittmatter and A. Folliard-Monguiral, and subsequently A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Finger and T. Farkas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2725/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weetabix and Aldi Einkauf.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case T-612/17: Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/37

         Action brought on 11 September 2017 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
   (Case T-612/17)
   (2017/C 369/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Google Inc. (Mountain View, California, United States) and Alphabet Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: T. Graf, R. Snelders and C. Thomas, lawyers, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitor, R. O’Donoghue and D. Piccinin, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 27 June 2017 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFUE and Article 54 of the Agreement on the EEA (AT.39741 — Google Search (Shopping));

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the Applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction, and

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to bear the Applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favoured a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product results (Product Universals).

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the contested decision misstates the facts. According to the applicants, Google launched grouped product results to improve quality, not to drive traffic to a Google comparison shopping service.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating product results and generic results differently involved favouring, when there was no discrimination.

                           —

                           The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Product Universals.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google favours a Google comparison shopping service by showing grouped product ads (Shopping Units).

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that treating grouped product ads and free generic results differently involves favouring, when there is no discrimination.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in finding that product ads in Shopping Units benefit a Google comparison shopping service.

                           —

                           The applicants finally put forward that the contested decision violates the legal standard for assessing Google’s objective justifications for showing Shopping Units.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct diverted Google search traffic.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct decreased Google search traffic to aggregators.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision does not demonstrate that the alleged abusive conduct increased traffic to a Google comparison shopping service.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that the alleged abusive conduct is likely to have anticompetitive effects.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the contested decision errs because it speculates about potential anticompetitive effects without examining actual market developments.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision fails to take proper account of the competitive constraint exercised by merchant platforms.

                           —

                           The applicants finally put forward that even if the competitive analysis could be limited to aggregators, the contested decision fails to show anticompetitive effects.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs by treating quality improvements that constitute competition on the merits as abusive.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the decision wrongly characterises Google’s product improvements in general search as abusive leveraging.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision demands that Google supply aggregators with access to its product improvements, without meeting the requisite legal conditions.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that a fine was not warranted because the Commission advanced a novel theory, selected the case for commitments, and previously rejected the remedy.

                           —

                           The applicants further put forward that the contested decision errs in calculating the fine.


title: Case T-751/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Contact Software v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Markets for computer-aided design software and for interface information about that software — Decision to reject a complaint — Relevant market — Manifest error of assessment — No EU interest)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Contact Software v Commission
   (Case T-751/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Markets for computer-aided design software and for interface information about that software - Decision to reject a complaint - Relevant market - Manifest error of assessment - No EU interest))
   (2017/C 369/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vollrath, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Dassault systèmes (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, and J. Messent, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 7006 final of 9 October 2015 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant regarding infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Dassault systèmes and Parametric Technology Corp. on certain markets for computer-aided design software and certain markets for interface information about that software (Case COMP/39846 — Contact/Dassault & Parametric).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Contact Software GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Dassault systèmes to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case T-86/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2017 — Codorniú SA v EUIPO (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ANA DE ALTUN — Earlier national figurative mark ANNA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2017 — Codorniú SA v EUIPO
   (Case T-86/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ANA DE ALTUN - Earlier national figurative mark ANNA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 369/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Codorniú SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bodegas Altun, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain) (represented by: M. Escribano Uzcudun, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 (Case R 199/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Codorníu and Bodegas Altun.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2015 (Case R 199/2015-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO and Bodegas Altun, SL to bear their own costs and each to pay half of those incurred by Codorníu SA.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case T-116/10: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — North Rhine-Westphalia Programme — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/18

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-116/10) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - North Rhine-Westphalia Programme - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))
   (2017/C 369/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by J. Möller, subsequently by J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997 is annulled.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-223/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Loss by those entities of the capacities required — National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/23

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.
   (Case C-223/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Loss by those entities of the capacities required - National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor))
   (2017/C 382/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

      Third parties: Consorzio Stabile Infratech, W.E.E. Water Environment Energy SpA, Massimo Fontana, Studio Tecnico Associato Thinkd, Claudio Della Rocca, Nicola Maione, Vittorio Ciotola, Fin.Se.Co. SpA, Edilgen SpA, Site Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility for an economic operator taking part in a tendering procedure to replace an auxiliary undertaking that has lost required qualifications after the submission of its tender and which results in the automatic exclusion of that operator.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-717/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)
   (Case T-717/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a horse’s head - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 382/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 1195/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing the silhouette of a horse’s head as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-609/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/49

         Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission
   (Case T-609/17)
   (2017/C 382/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes certain export refunds paid by the French Republic in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission based its decision, for the most part, on purported serious failures by the French Republic to fulfil its obligations in the area of checks on the water content of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds.
   However, it is incorrect to assert that the French authorities have seriously failed to fulfil those obligations, having regard to the EU legislation and the enhanced measures that have been put in place since 2010. The analyses of the water content form part of the checks on the sound, fair and marketable quality of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds that are carried out on the basis of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1276/2008. According to the applicant, that provision does not require every physical check on frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds to include a laboratory analysis of the water content.
   Thus, it considers that it was for the French authorities to determine the control measures to be taken, provided that those measures were proportionate having regard to the financial risk for the EAGF. In that regard, the applicant claims that the French authorities have put in place an ambitious scheme which takes that financial risk into account.


title: Case T-83/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WIDIBA — Earlier national word mark DiBa — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Duty of care)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)
   (Case T-83/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WIDIBA - Earlier national word mark DiBa - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Duty of care))
   (2017/C 374/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy) and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and J. García Murillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Gerling and M. Wolpert-Witzel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between ING-DIBa and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-628/17: Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/48

         Action brought on 18 September 2017 — Aeris Invest v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-628/17)
   (2017/C 374/71)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Calvo Costa, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-631/17: Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/50

         Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-631/17)
   (2017/C 382/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Defendants: Single Resolution Board and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-453/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition — Other earlier sign 520 — Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas)
   (Case T-453/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition - Other earlier sign 520 - Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based))
   (2017/C 382/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Roussou, M.-M. Theodoridou and F. Christodoulou-Kardiopoulis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 and 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1; and

               3.

               Orders 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-215/16, C-216/16, C-220/16 and C-221/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (requests for preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16) v Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Electricity generated by wind power — Directive 2009/28/EC — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 — Aid scheme — Subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) — Administrative charges — Directive 2008/118/EC — General arrangements for excise duty — Article 1(2) — Other indirect taxes for specific purposes — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 4 — Minimum rate of taxation on energy — Levy imposed on turbines designed to produce electricity)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/22

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 (requests for preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16) v Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha
   (Joined Cases C-215/16, C-216/16, C-220/16 and C-221/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Electricity generated by wind power - Directive 2009/28/EC - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 - Aid scheme - Subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) - Administrative charges - Directive 2008/118/EC - General arrangements for excise duty - Article 1(2) - Other indirect taxes for specific purposes - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 4 - Minimum rate of taxation on energy - Levy imposed on turbines designed to produce electricity))
   (2017/C 382/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Elecdey Carcelen SA (C-215/16), Energías Eólicas de Cuenca SA (C-216/16), Iberenova Promociones SAU (C-220/16), Iberdrola Renovables Castilla La Mancha SA (C-221/16)

      Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, in particular, subparagraph (k) of the second subparagraph of Article 2 and subparagraph (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity;

               2.

               Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not tax energy products or electricity, within the meaning of Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (2) of that directive, and, therefore, does not fall within its scope

               3.

               Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a levy on wind turbines designed to produce electricity, since that levy does not constitute a tax imposed on the consumption of energy products or electricity, and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-569/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-569/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and engaged in paid employment on the territory of another Member State during a period of unpaid leave lasting three months))
   (2017/C 382/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing and employed in the territory of one Member State who, for a period of three months, takes unpaid leave and is employed in the territory of another Member State, is to be regarded as normally employed in the territory of two Member States within the meaning of that provision, provided that, during that period of leave, he is considered as normally employed under the social security legislation of the first Member State and that the activity carried out on the territory of the second Member State is habitual and significant in nature, which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-564/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/34

         Action brought on 25 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-564/17)
   (2017/C 382/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, G. von Rintelen and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               find that, by failing to adopt, no later than 25 December 2013, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, (1) and in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of the directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 70 828,80 per day, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, for failure to comply with the obligation to give notification of the measures transposing Directive 2011/98/EU;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Member States were required, under the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Directive 2011/98/EU, to adopt the national measures required to transpose the obligations under the directive no later than 25 December 2013. As Belgium has failed to confirm that it has adopted all the measures necessary to fully transpose the directive, the Commission has decided to bring the present action before the Court of Justice.
   In its application, the Commission proposes that the Kingdom of Belgium be ordered to pay a penalty payment of EUR 70 828,80 per day. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement and as well as the deterrent effect in the light of the Member State’s ability to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1.


title: Case T-668/17: Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/58

         Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)
   (Case T-668/17)
   (2017/C 382/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark application No 13 706 726

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 in Case R 2089/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017, No R 2089/2016-4 Eico v Maico, and the opposition decision of 26 October 2016, No B 002528654, and amend them in such a way that the appeal and the opposition are upheld in their entirety;

               —

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

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) thereof.


title: Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA (Civil Service — Appointment — Position of executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Selection and appointment procedure — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Impartiality — Assessment criteria — Appointment of another candidate — Res judicata)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA
   (Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Appointment - Position of executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Selection and appointment procedure - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Impartiality - Assessment criteria - Appointment of another candidate - Res judicata))
   (2017/C 382/50)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: in Case T-495/16 RENV I, M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska and, in Case T-496 RENV II, initially M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, then M. Ekimdzhiev and K. Boncheva, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: G. Berscheid and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the Commission decision of 20 April 2011 by which it proposed to the EMA’s Management Board a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments and of the decision of the EMA’s Management Board of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA and seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Emil Hristov to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-2/12, T-26/15 P, T-27/15 P, T-495/16 RENV I and T-495/16 RENV II.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-2/12).