title: Case C-111/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Genetically modified food and feed — Emergency measures — National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 — Maintenance or renewal of the measure — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 34 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Articles 53 and 54 — Conditions of application — Precautionary principle)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga
   (Case C-111/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Genetically modified food and feed - Emergency measures - National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 - Maintenance or renewal of the measure - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 34 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Articles 53 and 54 - Conditions of application - Precautionary principle))
   (2017/C 382/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Udine

      Parties in the criminal proceedings comprising the main proceedings

   Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga, Luciano Taboga

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, read in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002 when a Member State officially informs the Commission, in accordance with Article 54(1) of that regulation, of the need to take such measures, as long as it is not evident that products authorised by Regulation No 1829/2003 or in accordance with that regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.

               2.

               Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, after officially informing the European Commission of the need to resort to emergency measures, and where the Commission has not acted in accordance with Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, first, adopt such measures at the national level and, second, maintain or renew such measures, so long as the Commission has not adopted, in accordance with Article 54(2) of that regulation, a decision requiring their extension, amendment or abrogation.

               3.

               Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read in conjunction with the precautionary principle as set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not give Member States the option of adopting, in accordance with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, interim emergency measures solely on the basis of that principle, without the conditions set out in Article 34 of Directive No 1829/2003 being satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case T-521/17: Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Hernández Díaz v SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/46

         Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Hernández Díaz v SRB
   (Case T-521/17)
   (2017/C 382/57)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Hernández Díaz (San Martin del Rey Aurelio, Spain) (represented by: L. Hernández Cabeza, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the resolution decision concerning the Banco Popular, on grounds of serious and irreparable irregularities that result in the invalidity of that decision, in that (i) it is based on a Deloitte report which was not independent, (ii) shareholders are subjected to much more significant losses than they would be had an arrangement with creditors been entered into and (iii) the bail-in tool was not applied.

               —

               Annul the sale of Banco Popular to the bank acquiring it for the price of EUR 1 on the ground of lack of transparency of the sale process which implies a serious violation of the principle of transparency as well as the principle of competition.

               —

               Order SRB to pay compensation to the shareholders for the compulsory transfer of their shares, the value of which cannot at present be assessed given the lack of transparency of the resolution process.

      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-648/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany (Article 273 TFEU — Dispute between Member States submitted to the Court under a special agreement between the parties — Taxation — Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation — Taxation of interest from financial instruments — Definition of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-648/15) (1)

   ((Article 273 TFEU - Dispute between Member States submitted to the Court under a special agreement between the parties - Taxation - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Taxation of interest from financial instruments - Definition of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’))
   (2017/C 382/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, F. Koppensteiner and H. Jirousek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’ referred to in Article 11(2) of the Abkommen zwischen der Republik Österreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen (Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital) of 24 August 2000 must be interpreted as excluding certificates such as those at issue in the present case.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-18/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application — Directive 2013/33/EU — First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) — Detention — Verification of identity or nationality — Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Restriction — Proportionality)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-18/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application - Directive 2013/33/EU - First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) - Detention - Verification of identity or nationality - Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Restriction - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 382/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Operative part of the judgment

   The examination of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-394/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/61

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (DATABAY)
   (Case T-394/16) (1)

   (2017/C 382/76)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eight Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-768/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — RP Technik v EUIPO — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark RP ROYAL PALLADIUM — Earlier EU word mark RP — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — RP Technik v EUIPO — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)
   (Case T-768/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark RP ROYAL PALLADIUM - Earlier EU word mark RP - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P.-J. Henrichs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tecnomarmi Snc Di Gatto Omar & C. (Treviso, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2015 (Case R 2061/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between RP Technik and Tecnomarmi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case T-535/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Asociación de Consumidores de Navarra ‘Irache’ v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/22

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Asociación de Consumidores de Navarra ‘Irache’ v SRB
   (Case T-535/17)
   (2017/C 369/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación de Consumidores de Navarra ‘Irache’ (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Sanjurjo San Martín, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision, declare the transactions carried out under it ineffective and order the return of the property of the Banco Popular Español, S.A. to the shareholders and bond-holders concerned, putting them back in the position they were in before the intervention;

               —

               If that is not possible, declare in any event that the conversion of the bonds into shares is ineffective, maintaining bond-holders in the same position as they were in on 6 June 2017 and order the payment of compensation to shareholders by payment corresponding to the actual value of the bank and, accordingly, of the shares on 30 June 2016.

      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-218/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Natural Instinct Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2017 in Case T-30/16: M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/2

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Natural Instinct Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2017 in Case T-30/16: M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct
   (Case C-218/17 P)
   (2017/C 369/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Natural Instinct Ltd (represented by: C. Spintig, Rechtsanwalt, S. Pietzcker, Rechtsanwalt, B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, M. I. Industries, Inc.
   By order of 7 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-494/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti
   (Case C-494/17)
   (2017/C 374/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’Appello di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

      Cross-appellant: Fabio Rossato

      Respondent: Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

      Question referred

   Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 1(95), (131) and (132) of Law No 107 of 2015 of the Italian State, which provides for the conversion of temporary teachers’ fixed-term contracts into contracts of indefinite duration with respect to the future, without retroactive effect and without compensation for damage, as measures that are proportionate, sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that the measures laid down in the Framework Agreement are fully effective as regards breach of the agreement resulting from abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts during the period prior to that in which the measures set out in the provisions in question are intended to have legal effect?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-331/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), third indent — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of the purpose of investigations — Directive 98/34/EC — Articles 8 and 9 — Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation — Refusal to grant access)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — French Republic v Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-331/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Right of public access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), third indent - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Protection of the purpose of investigations - Directive 98/34/EC - Articles 8 and 9 - Detailed opinion of the European Commission concerning a draft technical regulation - Refusal to grant access))
   (2017/C 374/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Carl Schlyter (represented by: S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt and O.W. Brouwer, advocaat), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Tokár and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, N. Otte Widgren, U. Persson, A. Falk, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic, Mr Carl Schlyter and the Commission to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-454/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio) (European Union trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Arrigoni Valtaleggio — Earlier national figurative mark ARRIGONI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Battista (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)
   (Case T-454/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Arrigoni Valtaleggio - Earlier national figurative mark ARRIGONI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/49)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrigoni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arrigoni Battista ApA (Bergamo, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, M. Balestriero and K. Muraro, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 2922/2014 1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Arrigoni and Arrigoni Formaggi SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Arrigoni SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case C-413/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Appeal — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Loyalty rebates — Commission’s jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 19)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2017 — Intel Corp. v European Commission, Association for Competitive Technology Inc., Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)
   (Case C-413/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Loyalty rebates - Commission’s jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 19))
   (2017/C 374/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Intel Corp. (represented by: D. Beard QC, and by A. Parr and R. Mackenzie, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci, M. Kellerbauer and N. Khan, acting as Agents), Association for Competitive Technology Inc. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat), Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 June 2014, Intel v Commission (T-286/09, EU:T:2014:547);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-582/17: Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/41

         Action brought on 22 August 2017 — Boshab and Others v Council
   (Case T-582/17)
   (2017/C 374/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo) and 7 other applicants (represented by: P. Chansay-Wilmotte, A. Kalambay Ndaya and P. Okito Omole, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the restrictive measures at issue to be null and void, namely,

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/904 of 29 May 2017 implementing Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/905 of 29 May 2017 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vaguely reasoned and significantly vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. According to the applicants, the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against them are unfounded in both fact and law. Moreover, the Council committed several irregularities, each capable of justifying the annulment of the contested acts.


title: Case T-779/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star)
   (Case T-779/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star - Earlier Community design - Ground of invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 382/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by: M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 (Case R 878/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between 8 seasons design and Mr Rühland.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case T-789/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION) (EU trade mark — Application for the figurative EU trade mark INVOICE AUCTION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION)
   (Case T-789/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the figurative EU trade mark INVOICE AUCTION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2201/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign INVOICE AUCTION as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-409/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Discrimination on the ground of sex — Competition for entry to the police school of a Member State — Law of that state imposing a minimum physical height requirement on all candidates for admission to that competition)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri
   (Case C-409/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Discrimination on the ground of sex - Competition for entry to the police school of a Member State - Law of that state imposing a minimum physical height requirement on all candidates for admission to that competition))
   (2017/C 424/13)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Defendant: Maria-Eleni Kalliri

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes candidates’ admission to the competition for entry to the police school of that Member State subject, whatever their sex, to a requirement that they are of a physical height of at least 1,70 m, since that law works to the disadvantage of a far greater number of women compared with men and that law does not appear to be either appropriate or necessary to achieve the legitimate objective that it pursues, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-255/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S (References for a preliminary ruling — Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations — National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret — Denmark) — Criminal proceedings against Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S
   (Case C-255/16) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Information procedure in the field of technical rules and regulations - National legislation clarifying or introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of gaming, lotteries and betting and introducing a prohibition on unauthorised offering of advertising for gaming, lotteries and betting))
   (2018/C 072/13)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Københavns Byret

      Party/parties in the main proceedings

   Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal sanctions where an unauthorised offer is made of gaming, lotteries or betting on the national territory, does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive. However, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for sanctions in the event of advertising for unauthorised gaming, lotteries or betting, does constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of that provision, subject to the notification obligation under Article 8(1) of that directive, as it is clear from the travaux préparatoires for that provision of national law that its object and purpose was to extend a pre-existing prohibition on advertising to cover online gaming services, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-696/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2017 by Alex SCI against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-841/16, Alex v Commission

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/28

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2017 by Alex SCI against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-841/16, Alex v Commission
   (Case C-696/17 P)
   (2018/C 072/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Alex SCI (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 10 October 2017 in full, except insofar as it recognises that the Commission’s decision of 21 September 2016 is challengeable
               ruling afresh on the case:

                           —

                           annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 September 2016;

                           —

                           declare the aid granted to CABAB by FEDER, the French State, the Regional Council of Aquitaine and the General Council of Pyrénées-Atlantiques unlawful and incompatible with the common market;

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees in the amount of EUR 5 000.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   A.   Admissibility
   The appellant requests that the General Court’s ruling on the decision’s openness to challenge be upheld. The letter of 21 September 2016 constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
   As regards Alex SCI’s standing and interest in bringing the proceedings, the appellant requests that the order of the General Court be altered. Its trading position is affected for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
   B.   Substance
   The first ground of appeal alleges formal illegality on the grounds of failure to provide adequate reasons. No legal, textual or jurisprudential basis is given in the decision of 21 September 2016, with the result that, merely from reading it, Alex SCI, represented by its managing director, does not understand that decision. To a high degree lacking adequate legal and factual reasoning, the decision is vitiated by formal illegality.
   The second ground of appeal alleges substantive illegality (existence of State aid and lack of notification). The Communauté d’Agglomération Côte-basque — Adour (‘CABAB’) sought, as part of its economic strategy, to develop the ‘Technocité’ site in Bayonne in order to establish a specialised platform in the field of aviation. For that purpose, it requested financing from FEDER, the French State, the Regional Council of Aquitaine and the General Council of Pyrénées-Atlantiques in order for them to co-finance its project through the payment, from each of them, of the sum of EUR 1 000 000.
   On the one hand, all the constituent elements of State aid being present, those payments constitute non-notified State aid, contrary to Article 108 TFEU.
   On the other hand, those payments are incompatible with the common market. The Technocité project is in fact an industrial and tertiary platform specialised in the development of the most advanced technologies in the fields of aviation, space and embedded systems. That sector is eminently open to competition. The aid is therefore contrary to Article 107 TFEU.
   Last, as regards the failure to perform the aid payment agreements, it must be noted that the purpose of those agreements is to finance a project of a ‘Technocité aviation hub’, for developing the site and making it ‘a platform specialised in the research and development of the most advanced technologies in the fields of aviation, space and embedded systems’. The Technocité zone covers all types of activities, which are carried out by unrelated companies such as Fidal, Avantis, Decra, Sepa, Trescal, KPMG, Capgemini…., that is to say, companies involved in fields that do not fall within the sphere of aviation.
   In short, the State aid must be annulled and the sums repaid (see, inter alia, Regulations No 734/2013 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) Article 4(1) and (4); French Council of State (CE), 2 June 1992, Rec. p. 165; CE, 6 November 1998, Rec. p. 397; Court of Justice, 11 July 1996, SFEI, Case C-39/94).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the Treaty (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 15).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-434/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 58(1) TFEU — Services in the field of transport — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Directive 2000/31/EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Information society services — Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys — Requirement for authorisation)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL
   (Case C-434/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 58(1) TFEU - Services in the field of transport - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Directive 2000/31/EC - Directive 98/34/EC - Information society services - Intermediation service to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys - Requirement for authorisation))
   (2018/C 072/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi

      Defendant: Uber Systems Spain SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU, read together with Article 58(1) TFEU, as well as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 20 July 1998, to which Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) refers, must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediation service such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU. Consequently, such a service must be excluded from the scope of Article 56 TFEU, Directive 2006/123 and Directive 2000/31.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case C-434/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘personal data’ — Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination — Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers — Article 12(a) and (b) — Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/20

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
   (Case C-434/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination - Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers - Article 12(a) and (b) - Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification))
   (2018/C 072/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Nowak

      Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constitute personal data, within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case C-14/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/29

         Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14 Alfamicro v Commission
   (Case C-14/18 P)
   (2018/C 072/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Alfamicro disputes the ruling of the General Court dismissing the action brought by Alfamicro and ordering it to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 277 849,93, together with interest accruing at the daily rate of EUR 26,88 until final payment. Alfamicro submits that the General Court should have ruled on the action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, and not on the basis of Article 272 TFEU. In addition, Alfamicro submits that, in its decision, which is administrative in nature, the Commission, with the acceptance of the General Court, did not observe the principles of proportionality, good faith and legal certainty.

               —

               Alfamicro submits that both the analysis and the context of the Commission’s letter of 28 October 2014 show that that letter constitutes a decision-making, administrative act, that is to say, an administrative decision. The terms in which it is drafted, the fact that it is based on an audit of the Court of Auditors, the fact that the Commission extrapolated the conclusions of the audit to all other agreements to which the appellant is a party and the adjustments made by the Commission all point to this being an administrative decision. The judgment of the General Court, which reflects the Court’s opinion that the action brought should be classified as a declarative action and not an action challenging an administrative decision, seriously limits the appellant’s rights of defence. In addition, Alfamicro submits that the General Court seriously infringed the principle of the equality of the parties and the principle of contractual balance.

               —

               By reducing the grant agreed with the appellant by more than 93 %, the Commission did not take appropriate measures, as was required by the grant agreement, and thus infringed the principle of proportionality. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court fails to observe, and indeed infringes, the principle of proportionality. Moreover, where the Commission is required to take appropriate measures, but only takes inappropriate, arbitrary measures, then there is no legal certainty. By accepting those actions of the Commission, the General Court also fails to observe the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-816/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/38

         Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-816/17)
   (2018/C 072/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Steichen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               principally, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon;

               —

               alternatively, annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon to the extent that it orders recovery of the aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, which is divided into three parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish the existence of an advantage in favour of Amazon EU S.à r.l. (‘LuxOpCo’).

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the application of the tax ruling and its renewal in 2011 did not lead to any advantage being granted inasmuch as the royalty fee that a third party would have paid for a licence for intangible assets would have been greater than the fee paid by LuxOpCo to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (‘LuxSCS’) under the licence agreement. The applicant maintains that the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon (‘the contested decision’) erred in finding that the royalty fee actually paid by LuxOpCo differs from the arm’s-length price.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging manifest errors of fact and of law that vitiate the analysis carried out in the contested decision relating to an alleged misapplication of the transactional net margin method in the context of the tax ruling, both in the choice of the tested party and in the application of the parameters of that method.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that, on the contrary, it is the Commission’s transfer pricing calculations in the contested decision that would lead to an outcome that deviates clearly from the arm’s-length principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, which is divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish that the tax ruling at issue is selective in nature:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the Commission wrongly assumed that the tax ruling at issue was selective, whereas, according to the case-law, the Commission cannot conclude that there is an advantage in order to assume that that advantage is selective, but must, in the context of its analysis of selectivity, first define the relevant frame of reference, then identify a derogation from that frame of reference.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the Commission has failed to provide evidence of the alleged selectivity of the aid referred to in its alternative reasoning. Those two alternative findings of selectivity are manifestly flawed in that the Commission erred as to the frames of reference and, in any event, failed to establish that there was any derogation from them.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 TFEU and 5 TFEU in that the Commission undertook covert fiscal harmonisation by imposing its own interpretation of the ‘right’ transfer pricing that LuxOpCo is deemed to have to pay to LuxSCS under the licence agreement at issue. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the Commission in fact exploited the rules on State aid in order to undertake covert fiscal harmonisation on transfer pricing, thereby infringing the exclusive competence of the Member States in the area of direct taxation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation 2015/1589 and of the rights of the defence, in that the Commission infringed the rights of the defence by adopting a decision that summarily rejected ex post documentation provided by Amazon and the central argument of which, namely an error in the choice of the tested party for the purposes of the transactional net margin method, could not be commented on in more detail by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or by Amazon.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the recovery of the aid is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, taking into account the good faith of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the application of transfer pricing and the fact that the new transfer pricing approach applied by the Commission in the contested decision could not have been foreseen.


title: Case T-76/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT (Technological research and development — EIT — Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation — Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community — Rejection of the applicant’s proposal — Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 — Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 — Unlawful delegation of powers)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Kenup Foundation and Others v EIT
   (Case T-76/15) (1)

   ((Technological research and development - EIT - Framework programme Horizon 2020 for research and innovation - Call for proposals with a view to the designation of a Knowledge and Innovation Community - Rejection of the applicant’s proposal - Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 - Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Unlawful delegation of powers))
   (2018/C 072/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Kenup Foundation (Kalkara, Malta) Candena GmbH (Luneburg, Germany), CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and subsequently by: U. Soltész, H. Weiß and A. Richter, and finally by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (represented by: M. Kern, acting as Agent, and P. de Bandt and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Republic of Malta (represented by: M.E. Perici Calascione, lawyer) and Stiftung Universität Lüneburg (represented by: F. Oehl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the EIT designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of 9 December 2014, the import of which was sent by letter of 10 December 2014, by which the European Institute of Innovation and Technology designated the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) ‘Innovation for Healthy Living and Active Ageing’ and rejected the Kenup consortium’s proposal;

               2.

               Orders the EIT to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kenup Foundation, Candena GmbH, CO BIK Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo and Evotec AG.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case T-819/17: Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/39

         Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO
   (Case T-819/17)
   (2018/C 072/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mercedes Sierra (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant to delete from the applicant’s ‘Appraisal Report’ for the year 2016 any criticism of her communication style, on the ground that it constitutes a misrepresentation and is contrary to the fundamental right of the individual to freely express ideas and opinions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against EUIPO’s decision adopted in the applicant’s annual performance appraisal for the year 2016.
   Specifically, the applicant requests that certain assessments be removed from the ‘Appraisal Report’.
   In support of her action, the applicant relies on her right to freedom of expression whilst at work without fear of reprisal.
   The applicant considers her right to freedom of expression to have been infringed and considers that the reason given for the decision not to promote the official, as merited on the basis of the appraisal of her commitment, the quality and performance of her work, denies her the opportunity to defend herself.


title: Case T-747/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF — Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Force of res judicata — Private investor test)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission
   (Case T-747/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF - Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Force of res judicata - Private investor test))
   (2018/C 072/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network implemented by France in favour of EDF (OJ 2016, L 34, p. 152).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-442/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity — Retention of the status of self-employed person — Right of residence — Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-442/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity - Retention of the status of self-employed person - Right of residence - Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State))
   (2018/C 072/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Florea Gusa

      Respondents: Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State retains the status of self-employed person for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive where, after having lawfully resided in and worked as a self-employed person in another Member State for approximately four years, that national has ceased that activity, because of a duly recorded absence of work owing to reasons beyond his control, and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office of the latter Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case T-68/16: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe — Position mark — Genuine use of the mark — Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)
   (Case T-68/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Position mark - Genuine use of the mark - Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 072/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Munich, SL (Capellades, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 2345/2014-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Deichman and Munich.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of Munich, SL.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-462/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-462/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds))
   (2018/C 072/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

      Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   In the light of the principles defined by the Court in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31), regarding the determination of the taxable amount for value added tax and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the discount granted, under national law, by a pharmaceutical company to a private health insurance company results, for the purposes of that article, in a reduction of the taxable amount in favour of that pharmaceutical company, where it supplies medicinal products via wholesalers to pharmacies which make supplies to persons covered by private health insurance that reimburses the purchase price of the medicinal products to persons it insures.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-204/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METABOX — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METABOX)
   (Case T-204/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METABOX - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier EU and national figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 072/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 307/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case C-268/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Interest in bringing proceedings — Notion of ‘personal benefit’)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-268/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Interest in bringing proceedings - Notion of ‘personal benefit’))
   (2018/C 072/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2016, Binca Seafoods v Commission (T-94/15, not published, EU:T:2016:164);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-273/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark METAPORN — Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the services — Meaning of complementary services — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)
   (Case T-273/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark METAPORN - Earlier EU and national word marks META4 and earlier figurative marks meta4 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the services - Meaning of complementary services - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 072/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meta4 Spain and Sun Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case C-467/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Lis pendens — Concept of court — Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/22

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall
   (Case C-467/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Lis pendens - Concept of court - Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings))
   (2018/C 072/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

      Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 27 and 30 the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory arbitration procedure was lodged before an arbitration authority under Swiss law is the date on which a ‘court’ is deemed to be seised.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case T-398/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS — Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)
   (Case T-398/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS - Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 072/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: J. Schmitt, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Kusturovic, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hasmik Nersesyan (Borgloon, Belgium)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Starbucks Corp. and Ms Hasmik Nersesyan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-823/17: Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/40

         Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Etnia Dreams v EUIPO — Poisson (Etnik)
   (Case T-823/17)
   (2018/C 072/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Etnia Dreams SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: P. Gago Comes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serge Poisson (Limal, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Etnik’ — Application for registration No 15 721 301.

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2018 in Case R 880/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should, as a consequence of the claim being upheld, give a new judgment allowing opposition No B 2 791 229 and therefore, after the appropriate legal formalities, reject the application for registration of the EU trademark No 15 721 301 ‘Etnik’ for Classes 3 and 35, under Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of the EUTMR, as there is a likelihood of confusion with the Community trade mark No 11 017 241, the proprietor of which is Etnia Dreams SL.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The basis of the opposition clearly falls within Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               The defendant should have applied the final subparagraph of Rule 17(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and therefore should have informed the applicant of the defect in order for it to be remedied within the period of two months.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Breach of Articles 10, 41, 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               —

               Breach of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-630/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA (REACH — Fee payable for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Notion of linked undertaking — Submission of a ‘Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size’ — 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge — Authority of the ECHA — Cessation of production of the substance)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — Dehtochema Bitumat v ECHA
   (Case T-630/16) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee payable for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Notion of linked undertaking - Submission of a ‘Declaration of Wrong Enterprise Size’ - 50 % reduction of the amount of the applicable administrative charge - Authority of the ECHA - Cessation of production of the substance))
   (2018/C 072/45)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented initially by J.-P. Trnka, E. Maurage and M. Heikkilä, and subsequently by J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the ECHA of 7 July 2016 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for medium-sized enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the application for the suspension of the enforcement of Decision SME(2016) 3038 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 7 July 2016;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Dehtochema Bitumat s. r. o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case C-521/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 — Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area — Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned — Jurisdiction — Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 — Article 8(1) and (3) — Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU — Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) — Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 — Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a — Rights of defence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41(1) — Right to good administration — Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU — Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure — Existence of an infringement — Misrepresentations — Determination of the fine — Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-521/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 - Imposition of a fine on a Member State in the context of economic and budgetary surveillance of the euro area - Manipulation of statistical data relating to the deficit of the Member State concerned - Jurisdiction - Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 - Article 8(1) and (3) - Delegated Decision 2012/678/EU - Articles 2(1) and (3) and 14(2) - Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 - Articles 3(1), 8(1), 11 and 11a - Rights of defence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41(1) - Right to good administration - Articles 121, 126 and 136 TFEU - Protocol No 12 on the excessive deficit procedure - Existence of an infringement - Misrepresentations - Determination of the fine - Principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect))
   (2018/C 072/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, A. Rubio González and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Dumitriu-Segnana, A.F. Jensen and A. de Gregorio Merino, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J.-P. Keppenne, M. Clausen and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-492/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Patents — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 18 — Plant-protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Article 17(2) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Fixing the date of expiry — Consequences of a judgment of the Court — Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/22

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Incyte Corporation v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
   (Case C-492/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 18 - Plant-protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 - Article 17(2) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Fixing the date of expiry - Consequences of a judgment of the Court - Possibility or requirement to rectify the date of expiry))
   (2018/C 072/29)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Incyte Corporation

      Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18 du Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in the light of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market, as stated in an application for a supplementary protection certificate, on the basis of which the national authority competent for granting such a certificate calculated the duration of the certificate, is incorrect in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the date led to a method for calculating the duration of the certificate which does not comply with the requirements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009, as interpreted by a subsequent judgment of the Court.

               2.

               Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, read in the light of recital 17 and of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that set out in point 1 of this operative part, the holder of a supplementary protection certificate may, under Article 18 of Regulation No 469/2009, bring an appeal for rectification of the duration stated in the certificate, provided that that certificate has not expired.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case T-834/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/41

         Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission
   (Case T-834/17)
   (2018/C 072/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, solicitor, F. Hoseinian and W. Knibbeler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest;

               —

               compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks compensation under Article 340 TFEU for the loss suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the General Court on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13.
   In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer rights on UPS. According to the applicant, each breach individually underpinned the Decision and prevented the applicant from acquiring TNT and from materialising the benefits associated with that proposed transaction.
   The applicant claims that these breaches are a serious breach of the law regarding (1) the price concentration analysis; (2) the efficiencies analysis; (3) the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness; and (4) the assessment of the closeness of competition made in the Decision.
   According to the applicant, each of these breaches, individually or considered together, is responsible for the unlawful Decision and establishes the Union’s liability under Article 340 TFEU.
   The applicant further claims that these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT. Without any one of the erroneous price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the closeness of competition assessment, so the applicant claims, no ordinarily prudent and diligent administration would have prohibited the proposed Transaction.
   According to the applicant, it should therefore be put in the position it would have been in had the unlawful Decision not been adopted by way of compensation under Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case C-500/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TUE — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/23

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-500/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemptions - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT - Article 4(3) TUE - Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation - Rights conferred on individuals - Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability - Effects of a judgment of the Court - Principle of legal certainty))
   (2018/C 072/30)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

      In the presence of: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-276/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of protection of the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 244 — Recovery of a customs debt — Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment — Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment — Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings — Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code)

text:
               26.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Prequ' Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
   (Case C-276/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of protection of the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 244 - Recovery of a customs debt - Lack of prior hearing of the addressee before the adoption of an amended tax assessment - Right of the addressee to obtain suspension of the implementation of the amended tax assessment - Lack of automatic suspension in the event of the bringing of administrative proceedings - Reference to the conditions provided for in Article 244 of the Customs Code))
   (2018/C 072/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Prequ' Italia Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

      Operative part of the judgment

   The right of any person to be heard before the adoption of a decision likely to adversely affect his interests must be interpreted as meaning that the rights of defence of the addressee of an amended tax assessment adopted by the customs authorities, in the absence of a prior hearing of the person concerned, are not infringed if the national legislation which allows the person concerned to contest that measure in the context of an administrative review merely provides the possibility to request the suspension of the implementation of that measure until its possible amendment by referring to Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 without the initiation of an administrative appeal automatically suspending the implementation of the contested measure, since the application of the second paragraph of Article 244 of that regulation, by the customs authorities, does not restrict the grant of a suspension of implementation where there are reasons to doubt the conformity of the contested decision with the customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.