title: Case C-588/17 P: Appeal brought on 9 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/21

         Appeal brought on 9 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-588/17 P)
   (2018/C 005/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold its appeal and set aside, in part, the judgment of the General Court delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-143/15, Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (EU:T:2017:534), in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castille and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22; and

               —

               annul, in the new judgment to be delivered, the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 January 2015, in so far it relates to the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33), corresponding to ‘natural handicaps’ and ‘agri-environmental measures’ in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, as regards the amount corresponding to the share of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘natural handicaps’, which amounts to EUR 1 793 798,22.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  Manifest distortion of the facts

               There is a manifest distortion of the facts since (i) as the Kingdom of Spain submitted in its application and proved, an agreement was reached before the Conciliation Body concerning the base on which the financial correction should be applied and (ii) the Kingdom of Spain demonstrated how forage areas with no animals could be included in the scope of the measures at issue and, therefore, could be affected by the corrections imposed by the Commission.

               2.

                  Error of law concerning the extent of the value of the agreements of the Conciliation Body, which entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation

               The General Court erred in law in that it disregarded the value and the effectiveness of partial agreements reached between the Commission and a Member State before the Conciliation Body. In addition, that error of law entails a manifest breach of the principle of sound administration and sincere cooperation since the General Court’s reasoning makes it legitimate for an authority to disregard, unilaterally, and without giving any explanation, the agreements which it reaches with a Member State in a conciliation procedure which was legally designed precisely to enable the Commission and the Member States to reach an agreement.

               3.

                  Error of law in that the General Court failed to state adequate reasons for the judgment under appeal

               The General Court did not rule on point III.2.3 of the application, in which the appellant argued that the Commission had infringed Article 31(2) of Regulation 1290/2005, (1) as well as the principle of proportionality, since the base which the Commission took into account in order to apply the financial correction included beneficiaries of the aid granted in respect of areas with ‘handicaps’ which did not contain forage areas.

               4.

                  Error of law concerning the scope of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the judicial review of the principle of proportionality, and breach of the principle of sound administration of justice

               The General Court did not carry out the judicial review incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and the principle of proportionality, and which consists in determining whether the State fulfilled the obligation to show that the Commission erred as regards the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement. Nor did it examine the information adduced by the Kingdom of Spain demonstrating the Commission’s error.
               Moreover, the General Court’s reasoning entails a breach of the principle of the sound administration of justice since it disregards the fact that the Kingdom of Spain determined the number of farms subject to the obligation to count livestock, and since it deviates from the subject-matter of the dispute as defined by the parties.

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


title: Case C-499/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — AZ v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98 — Discretion of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services — Annexe III, point 1 — Foodstuffs — Pastry goods and cakes — Best-before date or use-by date — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — AZ v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-499/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Discretion of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services - Annexe III, point 1 - Foodstuffs - Pastry goods and cakes - Best-before date or use-by date - Principle of fiscal neutrality))
   (2018/C 005/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AZ

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude — provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain — national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the application of the reduced VAT rate to fresh pastry goods and cakes depend solely on the criterion of their ‘best-before date’ or their ‘use-by date’.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-570/15: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Federcaccia della Regione Liguria and Others v Commission (Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Species which may be hunted — Conditions to be complied with by national laws on hunting — Harmonisation of the criteria for the application of Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC — Closed period of hunting in Liguria)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/42

         Order of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Federcaccia della Regione Liguria and Others v Commission
   (Case T-570/15) (1)

   ((Environment - Conservation of wild birds - Species which may be hunted - Conditions to be complied with by national laws on hunting - Harmonisation of the criteria for the application of Article 7(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC - Closed period of hunting in Liguria))
   (2018/C 005/57)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Federcaccia della Regione Liguria (Genoa, Italy) and the ten other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: A. Bruni, P. Balletti and A. Mozzati, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to update certain Italian data in the document on key concepts, established by the ORNIS Committee, which is provided for by Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7); application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 6 October 2014 stating that the extension in Italy of the hunting season for certain species of bird is incompatible with EU law; and application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission’s failure to update the Italian data.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Federcaccia della Regione Liguria and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-419/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Carrera — Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Admissibility of the application for revocation — Non-challenge agreement — Decisions of the national courts — Abuse of rights — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Application for suspension of the proceedings before EUIPO)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera)
   (Case T-419/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Carrera - Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Admissibility of the application for revocation - Non-challenge agreement - Decisions of the national courts - Abuse of rights - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Application for suspension of the proceedings before EUIPO))
   (2018/C 005/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carrera Brands Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: C. Markowsky, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Früchtl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 (Case R 278/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Autec and Carrera Brands.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Carrera Brands Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case C-552/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Wind Inovation 1’ EOOD, in liquidation v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Dissolution of a company resulting in its removal from the value added tax (VAT) register — Obligation to calculate VAT on available assets and to pay the VAT calculated to the State — Maintenance or amendment of the law existing on the date of accession to the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 176 — Effect on the right to deduct — Article 168)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Wind Inovation 1’ EOOD, in liquidation v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
   (Case C-552/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Dissolution of a company resulting in its removal from the value added tax (VAT) register - Obligation to calculate VAT on available assets and to pay the VAT calculated to the State - Maintenance or amendment of the law existing on the date of accession to the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 176 - Effect on the right to deduct - Article 168))
   (2018/C 005/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Wind Inovation 1’ EOOD, in liquidation

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the compulsory removal from the value added tax (VAT) register of a company whose dissolution has been ordered by court decision results in the obligation to calculate the input VAT due or paid on the available assets on the date of the dissolution of that company and to pay it to the State, on condition that that company no longer carries out economic transactions as from its dissolution.

               2.

               Directive 2006/112, in particular Article 168 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the compulsory removal from the VAT register of a company whose dissolution has been ordered by court decision results, even where that company continues to carry out economic transactions whilst being placed under liquidation, in the obligation to calculate the input VAT due or paid on the available assets on the date of that dissolution and to pay it to the State and which, therefore, makes the right to deduct subject to compliance with that obligation.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.01.2017.


title: Case T-456/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — HUG (GULLON DARVIDA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark GULLON DARVIDA — Earlier international and national word marks DAR VIDA — Documents produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 19(1) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — HUG (GULLON DARVIDA)
   (Case T-456/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GULLON DARVIDA - Earlier international and national word marks DAR VIDA - Documents produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 19(1) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 005/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hug AG (Malters, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Renck and J. Schmitt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 (Case R 773/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Hug and Galletas Gullón.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Galletas Gullón, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Hug AG.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-641/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Court having jurisdiction — Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings — Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings — Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France
   (Case C-641/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Court having jurisdiction - Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings - Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings - Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them))
   (2018/C 005/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

      Defendant: Expert France

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for unfair competition by which the assignee of part of the business acquired in the course of insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as being the exclusive distributor of articles manufactured by the debtor does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the insolvency proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case C-98/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain)) — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Male and female workers — Equal treatment in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — ‘Vertical’ part-time worker — Unemployment benefit — National legislation excluding days not worked from the contribution period for the purpose of establishing the duration of the benefit)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain)) — María Begoña Espadas Recio v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)
   (Case C-98/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Male and female workers - Equal treatment in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - ‘Vertical’ part-time worker - Unemployment benefit - National legislation excluding days not worked from the contribution period for the purpose of establishing the duration of the benefit))
   (2018/C 005/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Begoña Espadas Recio

      Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SPEE)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, is not applicable to a contributory unemployment benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work, excludes days not worked from the calculation of days in respect of which contributions have been paid, and therefore reduces the unemployment benefit payment period, when it is established that the majority of vertical part-time workers are women who are adversely affected by such legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015


title: Case T-458/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Acquafarm v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Operational programme financed by the European Union — EU rules prohibiting imports of crustaceans from Australia — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Omission to act — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — Acquafarm v Commission
   (Case T-458/16) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Operational programme financed by the European Union - EU rules prohibiting imports of crustaceans from Australia - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Omission to act - Legitimate expectations))
   (2018/C 005/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Acquafarm, SL (Huelva, Spain) (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas, I. Galindo Martín and F. Moro, Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 268 TFEU claiming compensation for the injury allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of completing an aquaculture project involving crustaceans from Australia and co-financed on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2006 L 223, p. 1) by reason of the ban on importing those crustaceans in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008 of 12 December 2008 implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards conditions and certification requirements for the placing on the market and the import into the Community of aquaculture animals and products thereof and laying down a list of vector species (OJ 2008 L 337, p. 41).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Acquafarm, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-833/16: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Karp v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/43

         Order of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Karp v Parliament
   (Case T-833/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 005/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions classifying the applicant in function group I, grade 1, under the contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant concluded on 25 February 2015, and in function group II, grade 4, step 1, under the contract of employment as contract agent concluded on 12 May 2016 and, secondly, seeking compensation for the damages allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those classifications.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The request for an expedited procedure is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               Mr Kevin Karp is ordered to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-555/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Teeäär v ECB (Civil service — ECB Staff — Career transition Support — Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party — Rules of sound administration in the management of staff — Material and non-material damage)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Teeäär v ECB
   (Case T-555/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB Staff - Career transition Support - Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party - Rules of sound administration in the management of staff - Material and non-material damage))
   (2018/C 005/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: initially, L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Malfrère and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for career transition support and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 18 August 2014 rejecting Mr Raivo Teeäär’s application for the career transition support put in place by that institution;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-86/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-619/17: Action brought on 9 September 2017 — de la Fuente Martín and Others v SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/44

         Action brought on 9 September 2017 — de la Fuente Martín and Others v SRB
   (Case T-619/17)
   (2018/C 005/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Juan Antonio de la Fuente Martín (Madrid, Spain) and 525 other applicants (represented by: M. Durán Muñoz and M. Duran Campos, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the resolution or decision of the Single Resolution Board, adopted at its expanded executive session of 7 June 2017 (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08), published partially and incompletely on 12 July 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., thereby depriving it of effect and repealing it, and order the return to shareholders and owners of capital instruments of their respective shares and capital instruments of that bank and, consequently, reinstate their rights in full.

               —

               Alternatively, declare that SRB’s contested decision has caused harm to Banco Popular Español, S.A. shareholders and bond holders — harm in respect of which SRB is under an obligation to pay compensation, in accordance with Article 87 of Regulation No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014 — and order SRB and, consequently, the European Union to pay compensation to the applicants in an amount equivalent to the financial value of the shares and capital instruments which were held by the applicants the day before the adoption of the contested decision or, where appropriate, in the alternative, in an amount equivalent to the financial value those shares and instruments would have maintained had the financial institution been subject to an ordinary insolvency procedure at the time of the adoption of the contested decision.

      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 C-356/16: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting the advertising of procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/14

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol
   (Case C-356/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting the advertising of procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine))
   (2018/C 005/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

      Parties in the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

   Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which protects public health and the dignity and integrity of the professions of plastic surgeon and plastic doctor by prohibiting any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising for procedures relating to plastic surgery or non-surgical plastic medicine.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-653/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Relea Álvarez and Others v SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/44

         Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Relea Álvarez and Others v SRB
   (Case T-653/17)
   (2018/C 005/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: María Jesús Relea Álvarez (Madrid, Spain) and 20 other applicants (represented by: M. Gómez de Liaño Botella, V. Hernández-Talavera Martin, M. Gómez de Liaño Botella, F. Azpeitia Gamazo and L. Lopez Álvarez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Declare that the EU has incurred financial liability for the damage caused and order the SRM fund to pay an amount corresponding to the value of the capital instruments before the implementation of the resolution mechanism, or in the alternative, the value of those instruments according to expert valuation carried out by an independent party, in accordance with Article 340, on the basis of which the applicants bring, in addition to the annulment proceedings, an action for damages;

               —

               Order SRB to pay the cost of these proceedings pursuant to Article 132 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      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 C-599/17: Action brought on 16 October 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/23

         Action brought on 16 October 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-599/17)
   (2018/C 005/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, before 3 July 2016, the laws, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 of 17 December 2015 on Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) as regards reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of that Regulation, (2) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that Directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for the transposition of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 into national law expired on 3 July 2016.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (OJ 2014, L 173, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2015, L 332, p. 126.


title: Case C-489/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — CTL Logistics GmbH v DB Netz AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rail transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Infrastructure charges — Pricing — National regulatory body monitoring the conformity of those infrastructure charges with that directive — Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between a railway infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking — Principle of non-discrimination — Reimbursement of the charges without intervention by that body and outside the claims procedures involving it — National legislation enabling the civil courts to set a fair amount in the case of unfair charges)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — CTL Logistics GmbH v DB Netz AG
   (Case C-489/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2001/14/EC - Infrastructure charges - Pricing - National regulatory body monitoring the conformity of those infrastructure charges with that directive - Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between a railway infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking - Principle of non-discrimination - Reimbursement of the charges without intervention by that body and outside the claims procedures involving it - National legislation enabling the civil courts to set a fair amount in the case of unfair charges))
   (2018/C 005/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CTL Logistics GmbH

      Defendant: DB Netz AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a review of the equity of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, on a case-by-case basis, by the ordinary courts and the possibility, if necessary, of amending the amount of those charges, independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body provided for in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-586/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Vincenti v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2015 promotion exercise — Lack of staff reports as a result of sick leave — General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Vincenti v EUIPO
   (Case T-586/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion exercise - Lack of staff reports as a result of sick leave - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations))
   (2018/C 005/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Tóth and A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the 2015 promotion procedure by not including his name on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise in so far as Mr Guillaume Vincenti was not taken into consideration for the 2015 promotion exercise;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-16/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case C-649/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Public broadcasting service — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Judgment in Altmark)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd
   (Case C-649/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Judgment in Altmark))
   (2018/C 005/04)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, advokater)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Commission and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd both at first instance and in relation to this appeal;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case C-474/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar — France) — Criminal proceedings against Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG and Stefan Nikless (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Applicable legislation — A1 certificate — Probative value)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/15

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar — France) — Criminal proceedings against Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG and Stefan Nikless
   (Case C-474/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Probative value))
   (2018/C 005/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Colmar

      Parties to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

   Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

      Interveners: Syndicat Prism’emploi, Union départementale CGT du Bas-Rhin and Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (Urssaf), assuming the rights of the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin

      Operative part of the order

   Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate, issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State under Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not come within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 883/2004.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-607/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB
   (Case C-607/17)
   (2018/C 005/31)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Memira Holding AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must account be taken, in the assessment of whether a loss in a subsidiary in another Member State is definitive within the meaning given in, inter alia, the case of A, and the parent company may thus deduct the loss on the basis of Article 49 TFEU, of the fact that, under the rules of the subsidiary’s State, there are restrictions on the possibility for parties other than the party itself which made the loss to deduct the loss?

               2.

               If a restriction such as that referred to in question 1 must be taken into consideration, must account then be taken of whether, in the case in question, there actually is another party in the subsidiary’s State which could have deducted the losses if that were permitted there?


title: Case C-656/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — European Commission v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Public broadcasting service — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’s)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — European Commission v TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd
   (Case C-656/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’s))
   (2018/C 005/05)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat), Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: C. Zatschler, M. Schneider, Í. Isberg and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2015, TV2/Danmark v Commission (T-674/11, EU:T:2015:684), to the extent that it annulled Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark in that the European Commission held that the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark through the TV2 Fund constituted State aid;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by TV2/Danmark A/S seeking the annulment of Decision 2011/839;

               3.

               Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay all the costs incurred by the European Commission and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd both at first instance and in relation to this appeal;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-666/17: Action brought on 29 September 2017 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/45

         Action brought on 29 September 2017 — NeoCell v EUIPO (BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN)
   (Case T-666/17)
   (2018/C 005/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NeoCell Holding Company LLC (Sunrise, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘BIOACTIVE NEOCELL COLLAGEN’ — International registration No 1 298 829 designating the European Union

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 in Case R 147/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, alter the contested decision to state that the application possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) or (c) of the Regulation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the application the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Company law — Directive 2004/25/EC — Takeover bids — Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) — Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria — National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria - National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller))
   (2018/C 005/21)
   Language of the cases: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16)

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Interveners: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp, Bluebell Partners Limited, Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

      Operative part of the order

   The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of ‘collusion’, without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, on condition that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.04.2017.


title: Case C-608/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 24 October 2017 — Skatteverket v Holmen AB
   (Case C-608/17)
   (2018/C 005/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Holmen AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               In order for a parent company in one Member State to have the right — which follows from, inter alia, the case of Marks & Spencer — on the basis of Article 49 TFEU to deduct definitive losses in a subsidiary in another Member State, is it necessary that the subsidiary be directly owned by the parent company?

               2.

               Is that part of a loss which, as a result of the rules in the subsidiary’s State, it has not been possible set off against profits which were made there in a particular year, but instead could be carried over so that they could potentially be deducted in a future year, also to be regarded as definitive?

               3.

               In the assessment of whether a loss is definitive, must account be taken of the fact that, under the rules in the subsidiary’s State, the possibility for parties other than the party making the loss itself to deduct the loss is restricted?

               4.

               If account is to be taken of a restriction such as that referred to in question 3, must regard be had to the extent to which the restriction has in fact led to it not being possible to set off any part of the losses against profits made by another party?


title: Case C-657/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV2/Danmark A/S (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Public broadcasting service — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Judgment in Altmark)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV2/Danmark A/S
   (Case C-657/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Public broadcasting service - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Judgment in Altmark))
   (2018/C 005/06)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat), European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2015, TV2/Danmark v Commission (T-674/11, EU:T:2015:684), to the extent that it annulled Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark in that the European Commission held that the advertising revenue for the years 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark through the TV2 Fund constituted State aid;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by TV2/Danmark A/S seeking the annulment of Decision 2011/839;

               4.

               Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd in relation to this appeal as well as all the costs incurred by the latter at first instance;

               5.

               Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to bear one half of its own costs in relation to this appeal;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-667/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — De Meyer and Others v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2014 promotion exercise — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the appellants’ names — Obligation to state reasons — No error of law — No distortion of the evidence — Application for the recusal of a judge)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — De Meyer and Others v Commission
   (Case T-667/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the appellants’ names - Obligation to state reasons - No error of law - No distortion of the evidence - Application for the recusal of a judge))
   (2018/C 005/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Pieter De Meyer (Brussels, Belgium) and the other appellants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by R. Rata, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and A.-A. Gilly, and subsequently by G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPEAL brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016, Adriaen and Others v Commission (F-113/15, EU:F:2016:162), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Pieter De Meyer and the other officials whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-46/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘LS Customs Services’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Non-Community goods — External Community customs transit procedure — Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties — Determination of the customs value — Article 29(1) — Conditions for the application of the transaction value method — Articles 30 and 31 — Choice of the method for determining the customs value — Obligation imposed upon the customs authorities to state reasons for the chosen method)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘LS Customs Services’ SIA
   (Case C-46/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Non-Community goods - External Community customs transit procedure - Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties - Determination of the customs value - Article 29(1) - Conditions for the application of the transaction value method - Articles 30 and 31 - Choice of the method for determining the customs value - Obligation imposed upon the customs authorities to state reasons for the chosen method))
   (2018/C 005/07)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant:‘LS Customs Services’ SIA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 955/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the method for determining customs value laid down by that provision is not applicable to goods that were not sold for export to the European Union.

               2.

               Article 31 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, read in conjunction with Article 6(3) of that regulation, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities are obliged to state, in their decision fixing the amount of import duties due, the reasons leading them to set aside the methods for determining customs value set out in Articles 29 and 30 of that regulation, as amended, before they could decide to apply the method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation, as amended, and the data on the basis of which the customs value of the goods was calculated, in order to enable the person concerned to assess whether that decision is well founded and to decide in full knowledge of the circumstances whether it is worthwhile for him to bring an action against it. It is for the Member States, exercising their procedural autonomy, to regulate the consequences of a failure by the customs authorities to fulfil their obligation to state reasons and to determine whether and to what extent such a failure may be remedied in the course of legal proceedings, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

               3.

               Article 30(2)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, before it can set aside the method for determining customs value laid down by that provision, the competent authority is not required to ask the producer to provide it with the information necessary for the application of that method. That authority is, however, required to consult all the information sources and databases available to it. It must also allow the economic operators concerned to provide it with any information which may contribute to determining the customs value of the goods pursuant to that provision.

               4.

               Article 30(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities are not required to state reasons why the methods set out in subparagraphs (c) and (d) of that provision are not to be applied, if they determine the customs value of the goods on the basis of the transaction value of similar goods in accordance with Article 151(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/95 of 19 July 1995.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016


title: Case T-75/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — USFSPEI v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability — Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Irregularities during the procedure for the adoption of the acts — Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the staff unions — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — USFSPEI v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-75/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Irregularities during the procedure for the adoption of the acts - Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the staff unions - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals))
   (2018/C 005/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union syndicale fédérale de services publics européens et internationaux (USFSPEI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara and J. Currall, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 1(27), (32), (46), (61), (64)(b), (65)(b) and (67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15) and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered following the adoption of Regulation No 1023/2013 in breach of the agreement on the 2004 Reform, of Articles 12 and 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations and of the consultation procedure provided for in the Council Decision of 23 June 1981.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Union syndicale fédérale de services publics européens et internationaux (USFSPEI) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-333/17: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Portugal) — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 21 and 38 — Non-discrimination — Consumer protection — Contract for a bank loan — Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than those contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Portugal) — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others
   (Case C-333/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21 and 38 - Non-discrimination - Consumer protection - Contract for a bank loan - Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than those contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2018/C 005/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caixa Económica Montepio Geral

      Defendants: Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho, Maria de Lurdes Coelho Pimenta Marinho, Daniel Pimenta Marinho, Vera da Conceição Pimenta Marinho

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (District Court, Braga, Portugal) by decision of 29 March 2017.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 07.08.2017


title: Case T-831/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Alfamicro v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) — Audit report — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of amounts paid — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons — Amendment of the form of order sought in the course of the proceedings — Set-off of claims — Counterclaim — Default interest)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Alfamicro v Commission
   (Case T-831/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) - Audit report - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons - Amendment of the form of order sought in the course of the proceedings - Set-off of claims - Counterclaim - Default interest))
   (2018/C 005/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: initially, G. Gentil Anastácio, D. Pirra Xarepe and L. Rodrigues Carvalho, and subsequently G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking, in essence, a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission against the applicant under Grant Agreement No 238882 on the EU financing of the ‘Save Energy’ project, concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) established by Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 310, p. 15) is non-existent, and, secondly, counterclaim seeking, in essence, an order that the applicant repay the subsidy wrongly paid under that grant agreement.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action brought by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda;

               2.

               Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849,93, increased by default interest at the rate of EUR 26,88 per day with effect from 20 June 2015;

               3.

               Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-687/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Vendrell Marti v SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/46

         Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Vendrell Marti v SRB
   (Case T-687/17)
   (2018/C 005/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Pedro Vendrell Marti (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

               —

               Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board 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 C-500/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Thomas Krauss v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Thomas Krauss v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-500/17)
   (2018/C 005/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Krauss

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   By order of 28 September 2017, the Court removed the case from its Register.


title: Case C-204/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 — Article 3 — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking — Severability)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/7

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)
   (Case C-204/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 - Article 3 - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Severability))
   (2018/C 005/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and M. J. Beck, Solicitor), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and N. Tuominen, Avocată), European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and A. Scalini, avocats, F. Di Gianni, avvocato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.06.2016.


title: Case T-690/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Uluru and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/46

         Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Uluru and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-690/17)
   (2018/C 005/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Uluru, SL (Madrid, Spain), Juan Adolfo Álvarez Lorenzana (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) and Raquel Fortet Rodríguez (Madrid) (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, J. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín, P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul SRB’s decision SRB/EES/2017/08 and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017 and, consequently, (i) order SRB and the European Commission to reinstate in favour of the applicants their investments in Banco Popular in the terms set out in the application or, (ii) in the alternative, order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;

               —

               Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Order that all the sums awarded to the applicants accrue compensatory interest as of 23 May 2017 (or, in the alternative, as of 7 June 2017) up to the date of the judgment and, additionally, default interest as of the date of the judgment, except for the costs resulting from the present proceedings, which will only accrue default interest as of the date of the judgment; and

               —

               Award to the applicants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in law.

      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 C-515/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2017 by Uniwersytet Wrocławski against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 13 June 2017 in Case T-137/16, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/17

         Appeal brought on 24 August 2017 by Uniwersytet Wrocławski against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 13 June 2017 in Case T-137/16, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA)
   (Case C-515/17 P)
   (2018/C 005/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci)

      Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               declare that the action was properly brought;

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. That ground is based on the submission that the interpretation given by the General Court regarding the application of that provision is flawed and contrary to the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in so far as it does not take into consideration the fact that the legal relationship indicated between the legal adviser (radca prawny) and the university is based on the independence and equality of the parties, and that, by its very nature, the profession of legal adviser in the Polish legal system is characterised by independence and an absence of subordination in relation to third parties and is also a profession of public trust.
   The second ground of appeal alleges that the General Court infringed Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of 23 April 2015. That ground is based on the submission that the General Court did not properly set out the reasons for its decision, because, in the grounds of the order under appeal, it provided an abstract statement and failed to link the view expressed to the facts of the present case, thereby significantly limiting the possibility for the appellant to put forward a proper defence.


title: Case T-697/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/47

         Action brought on 4 October 2017 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)
   (Case T-697/17)
   (2018/C 005/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Arnott, A. Nicholls, solicitors and G. Hollingworth, barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COOKING CHEF GOURMET’ — Application for registration No 15 549 637

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 in Case R 231/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               the Office shall bear its own costs of the proceedings before the Office and General Court and pay those of the Applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-229/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EBA (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of interim staff for IT services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EBA
   (Case T-229/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of interim staff for IT services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2018/C 005/36)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA) (represented by: J. Overett Somnier, J. Mifsud and S. Giordano, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann and A. Dritsa, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, an action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EBA of 2 March 2015 rejecting the applicants’ tender submitted in response to the restricted tendering procedure EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT with respect to Lot 1, titled ‘Supply of interim staff: Supply of interim staff for Information Technology’ and, second, an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for harm that the applicants allegedly suffered following that decision as a result of the loss of opportunity to be ranked in first place in the cascade the contract award procedure at issue, amounting to EUR 300 000, together with interest

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015


title: Case T-668/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — HL v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2014 promotion exercise — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the appellant’s name — Obligation to state reasons — No error of law — No distortion of the evidence — Application for the recusal of a judge)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — HL v Commission
   (Case T-668/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the appellant’s name - Obligation to state reasons - No error of law - No distortion of the evidence - Application for the recusal of a judge))
   (2018/C 005/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: HL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially by G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and A.-A. Gilly, and subsequently by Berscheid, G. Gattinara and Berardis-Kayser, Agents,)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016, HL v Commission (F-112/15, EU:F:2016:161), and seeking to have that judgment set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders HL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-205/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Appeal — Subsidies — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 — Article 2 — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking — Severability)

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/7

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)
   (Case C-205/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Subsidies - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 - Article 2 - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Severability))
   (2018/C 005/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and M. J. Beck, Solicitor), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and N. Tuominen, Avocată), European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and A. Scalini, avocats, F. Di Gianni, avvocato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.06.2016.


title: Case C-556/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2017 — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2017 — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
   (Case C-556/17)
   (2018/C 005/25)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alekszij Torubarov

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

      Question referred

   Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the Hungarian courts have the power to amend administrative decisions of the competent asylum authority refusing international protection, and also to grant such protection?

      (1)  OJ 2013, L 180, p. 60.


title: Case T-700/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB

text:
               8.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 5/48

         Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB
   (Case T-700/17)
   (2018/C 005/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Traviacar, S.L. (O Carballiño, Spain) and 96 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

               —

               Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board 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.