title: Case C-183/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA (Appeal — Agriculture — Poultrymeat — Frozen chickens — Export refunds — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Legality — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Articles 162 and 164 — Subject matter and nature of the refunds — Criteria for fixing the amount — Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation — Misuse of powers — ‘Comitology’ — Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 — Article 3(3) — Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets — Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee — Compliance with time limits — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Annulment with maintenance of the effects)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — Tilly-Sabco SAS v European Commission, Doux SA
   (Case C-183/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agriculture - Poultrymeat - Frozen chickens - Export refunds - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Legality - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Articles 162 and 164 - Subject matter and nature of the refunds - Criteria for fixing the amount - Powers of the Director-General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development to sign the contested regulation - Misuse of powers - ‘Comitology’ - Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 - Article 3(3) - Consultation with the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets - Presentation of the draft implementing regulation during the meeting of that committee - Compliance with time limits - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Annulment with maintenance of the effects))
   (2017/C 382/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Tilly-Sabco SAS (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and K. Skelly, acting as Agents), Doux SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 January 2016, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (T-397/13, EU:T:2016:8);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat;

               3.

               Maintains the effects of Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 until the entry into force of a new act intended to replace it;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-58/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020 — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(h) — Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ — Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon — Liquid waste — Excluded)

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-58/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 3(h) - Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ - Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon - Liquid waste - Excluded))
   (2018/C 083/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes from the concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’, within the meaning of that provision, greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-27/18: Action brought on 16 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/17

         Action brought on 16 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-27/18)
   (2018/C 083/24)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, Y. Marinova and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, by 10 April 2016 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/26/EU
                   (1)
                  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72), or in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment, in view of its failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive 2014/26/EU, in the amount of EUR 19 121,60 per day, calculated as from the date of delivery of the judgment upholding the application;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs relating to the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Under Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the directive by 10 April 2016 and immediately to inform the Commission thereof. In view of the failure to notify the national measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

               2.

               In its application the Commission proposes that the Republic of Bulgaria be ordered to pay a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 19 121,60 per day. The amount of that periodic penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the serious nature and duration of the infringement, and the deterrent effect, in the light of that Member State’s ability to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.


title: Case C-704/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 December 2017 — D. H. v Ministerstvo vnitra

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 December 2017 — D. H. v Ministerstvo vnitra
   (Case C-704/17)
   (2018/C 083/18)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: D. H.

      Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra

      Question referred

   Does the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude national legislation which does not allow the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) to review a judicial decision concerning detention of a foreign national after the foreign national has been released from detention?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.


title: Case C-415/16: Order of the President of the Court of 8 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Portugal) — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Portugal) — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA
   (Case C-415/16) (1)

   (2018/C 083/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-277/17: Order of the President of the Court of 15 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-277/17) (1)

   (2018/C 083/27)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-869/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Wenger v EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SWISSGEAR — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Wenger v EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)
   (Case T-869/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SWISSGEAR - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 083/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wenger SA (Delémont, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Ikas and A. Sulovsky, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swissgear Sàrl (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Hacke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2098/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Swissgear and Wenger.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wenger SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Swissgear Sàrl.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-716/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 December 2017 — A

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 22 December 2017 — A
   (Case C-716/17)
   (2018/C 083/20)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 45 TFEU, as interpreted following the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 8 November 2012 in Case C-461/11, (1) preclude a rule on jurisdiction such as the Danish one, the aim of which is to ensure that the court hearing a case involving debt relief has knowledge of and can take account in its assessment of the specific socio-economic situation in which the debtor and his or her family live and must be assumed will continue to live going forward, and that the assessment may be carried out according to previously-determined criteria establishing what can be deemed to be an acceptably modest standard of living under the debt relief arrangement?

         If the answer to question 1 is that the restriction cannot be held to be justified, the EU Court of Justice is asked to answer the following question:

               2.

               Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as also having direct effect as between private parties in a situation such as the present one, with the result that private creditors must accept reductions or total loss of amounts owed to them by a debtor who has moved to another country?

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:704.


title: Case T-862/16: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/23

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)
   (Case T-862/16) (1)

   (2018/C 083/35)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-463/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 77/388/EEC — Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) — Reduced rate of VAT — Annex H, category 7 — Single supply comprised of two distinct elements — Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements — ‘World of Ajax’ tour — Visit to the AFC Ajax museum)

text:
               5.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 83/4

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-463/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 77/388/EEC - Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) - Reduced rate of VAT - Annex H, category 7 - Single supply comprised of two distinct elements - Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements - ‘World of Ajax’ tour - Visit to the AFC Ajax museum))
   (2018/C 083/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprised of two distinct elements, one principal, the other ancillary, which, if they were supplied separately, would be subject to different rates of value added tax, must be taxed solely at the rate of value added tax applicable to that single supply, that rate being determined according to the principal element, even if the price of each element forming the full price paid by a consumer in order to be able to receive that supply can be identified.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case C-570/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/2

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO
   (Case C-570/17 P)
   (2018/C 094/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 16 January 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-24/18: Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

text:
               12.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/32

         Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission
   (Case T-24/18)
   (2018/C 094/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: adidas International Trading BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Gabor Footwear GmbH (Rosenheim, Germany), Gabor Shoes AG (Rosenheim), HR Online GmbH (Osnabrück, Germany), Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Timberland Europe BV (Almelo, Netherlands), Wolverine Europe BV (Amsterdam,), Wolverine Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 of 31 October 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co. Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co., Ltd, implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 285, p. 14); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation:

                           (i)

                           lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the basis Regulation;

                           (ii)

                           is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; and

                           (iii)

                           is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicants’ suppliers to impose a retroactive anti-dumping duty and violated the principle of non-discrimination; and

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 296 TFEU.

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


title: Case C-713/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 December 2017 — Ahmad Shah Ayubi

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 December 2017 — Ahmad Shah Ayubi
   (Case C-713/17)
   (2018/C 123/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ahmad Shah Ayubi

      Defendant authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, (1) under which a Member State has the obligation to provide to beneficiaries of international protection (in the Member State that granted such protection) the necessary social assistance as provided to nationals of that Member State, to be interpreted as satisfying the criteria for direct applicability as developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

               2.

               Is Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that only persons granted asylum with permanent residence be given social assistance in the form of needs-based minimum benefits in full and to the same extent as nationals of the Member State, but provides for the reduction of social assistance from needs-based minimum benefits for those persons granted asylum with only temporary residence, and consequently, in the same amount of social assistance as is awarded to persons eligible for subsidiary protection?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


201805250641897342018/C 200/355542015TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425292911Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission (State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2910120180425EN0035291291Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Hungary v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(State aid — Aid granted under the Hungarian Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco companies — Aid resulting from a 2014 amendment to the Hungarian Food Chain Act 2008 and the official control thereof — Taxes with progressive annual turnover rates — Decision to open the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Simultaneous adoption of a suspension injunction — Action for annulment — Severable nature of the suspension order — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Principle of loyal cooperation — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)’2018/C 200/35Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, in part, of, first, Commission decision C(2015) 4805 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA.41187 (2015/NN) — Hungary — Health contribution of tobacco industry businesses (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 24), and, second, of Commission decision C(2015) 4808 final of 15 July 2015 on State aid SA. 40018 (2015/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee (OJ 2015 C 277, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the actions;

            2.

            Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


201805250481897162018/C 200/602452018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180416474821Case T-245/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Benavides Torres v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4710120180416EN0060471482Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Benavides Torres v Council
   (Case T-245/18)2018/C 200/60Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

            —

            order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his role as General Commander of the Bolivarian National Guard, is responsible for serious human rights violations allegedly committed by the Bolivarian National Guard and undermined the rule of law in Venezuela.


201805250701897182018/C 200/367522015TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426293022Case T-752/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV) — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low tender — Award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2920120180426EN0036292302Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-752/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV) — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low tender — Award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-contractual liability)’2018/C 200/36Language of the case: Greek
      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude, A. Kyratsou and S. Lejeune, and subsequently by: S. Delaude, A. Kyratsou and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents

      Re:

   ACTION, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2015 to reject the applicants’ tender submitted in relation to open procurement procedure No DIGIT/R3/PO/2015/0008, entitled ‘Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV)’, in respect of Lot 3 on ‘information system and Web infrastructure solutions development, support, engineering and testing’ and, second, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm caused by that decision which the applicants claim to have sustained

      Operative part

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

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

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


201805250541897082018/C 200/612462018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180416484811Case T-246/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Moreno Pérez v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4810120180416EN0061481481Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Moreno Pérez v Council
   (Case T-246/18)2018/C 200/61Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Maikel José Moreno Pérez (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

            —

            order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant, in his roles as President and former Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, has supported and facilitated the Government’s actions and policies which have undermined democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela, and is responsible for actions and statements that have usurped the authority of the National Assembly.


201805250411896982018/C 200/371332016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424303121Joined Cases T-133/16 to T-136/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence and Others v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(e) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Person effectively directing the business of a credit institution — Article 13(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU and the second paragraph of Article L. 511-13 of the French Monetary and Financial Code — Prohibition on combining the role of chairman of the management body of a credit institution in its supervisory function with the role of chief executive officer of the same establishment — Article 88(1)(e) of Directive 2013/36 and Article L. 511-58 of the French Monetary and Financial Code)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3010120180424EN0037301312Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence and Others v ECB
   (Joined Cases T-133/16 to T-136/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(e) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Person effectively directing the business of a credit institution — Article 13(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU and the second paragraph of Article L. 511-13 of the French Monetary and Financial Code — Prohibition on combining the role of chairman of the management body of a credit institution in its supervisory function with the role of chief executive officer of the same establishment — Article 88(1)(e) of Directive 2013/36 and Article L. 511-58 of the French Monetary and Financial Code)’2018/C 200/37Language of the cases: French
      Parties

      Applicant in Case T-133/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-134/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées (Albi, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-135/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres (Saintes, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-136/16: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie (Amiens, France) (represented by: P. Mele and H. Savoie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Karpf and C. Hernández Saseta, acting as Agents, and by A. Heinzmann, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Actions pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of ECB decisions, respectively,
   ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/98,
   ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/100,
   ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/101 and
   ECB/SSM/2016-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/99, of 29 January 2016, adopted pursuant to Article 4(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), Article 93 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the ECB of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the ECB and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1) and Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the Code monétaire et financier français (French Monetary and Financial Code).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the actions;

            2.

            Orders the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Nord Midi-Pyrénées, the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Charente-Maritime Deux-Sèvres and the Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Brie Picardie to bear their own respective costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

            3.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


201805250451897242018/C 200/381902016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426313221Case T-190/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3110120180426EN0038311322Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-190/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Rights of the defence — Principle of good administration — Misuse of power — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Manifest error of assessment)’2018/C 200/38Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1)

            Dismisses the action;

            2)

            Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


201805250731897212018/C 200/467632016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412363722Case T-763/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger (Arbitration clause — Staff of EU international missions — Disputes concerning employment contracts — Internal investigation procedures — Protection of victims in cases where a claim of harassment has been made — Contractual liability)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3620120180412EN0046362372Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2018 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger
   (Case T-763/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Arbitration clause — Staff of EU international missions — Disputes concerning employment contracts — Internal investigation procedures — Protection of victims in cases where a claim of harassment has been made — Contractual liability)’2018/C 200/46Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: PY (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger) (represented by: E. Raoult and M. Vicente Hernandez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 272 TFEU seeking an order requiring EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm allegedly suffered by the latter as a result of a breach of contract by EUCAP Sahel Niger.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay to PY the sum of EUR 10000;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders EUCAP Sahel Niger to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by PY.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


201805250671897122018/C 200/392482016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425323211Case T-248/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3210120180425EN0039321321Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)
   (Case T-248/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/39Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 150/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


201805250231897602018/C 200/243022017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412191911Case C-302/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1910120180412EN0024191191Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Bratislave — Slovakia) — PPC Power a.s. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty
   (Case C-302/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Objectives — Free allocation of allowances — National legislation making transferred and unused allowances subject to taxation)’2018/C 200/24Language of the case: Slovak
      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Bratislave (Slovakia)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PPC Power a.s.

      Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Daňový úrad pre vybrané daňové subjekty

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which taxes, at 80 % of their value, greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge which have been sold or not used by the undertakings subject to the greenhouse gas emission trading scheme.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


201805250741897222018/C 200/478312016TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424373711Case T-831/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3710120180424EN0047371371Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)
   (Case T-831/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZOOM — Earlier EU figurative and word marks ZOOM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/47Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, K. Sidat Humphreys and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leedsworld, Inc. (New Kensington, Pennsylvania, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 September 2016 (Case R 1235/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom and Leedsworld, Inc;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


201805250321897502018/C 200/253232017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412192022Case C-323/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1920120180412EN0025192202Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta
   (Case C-323/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Article 6(3) — Screening in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications, for a special area of conservation, of a plan or project — Measures that may be taken into account for that purpose)’2018/C 200/25Language of the case: English
      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman

      Respondent: Coillte Teoranta

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201805250121897542018/C 200/264412017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417202121Case C-441/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(1) and (3) — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 4 and 5 — ‘Puszcza Białowieska’ Natura 2000 site — Amendment of the forest management plan — Increase in the volume of harvestable timber — Plan or project not directly necessary to the management of the site that is likely to have a significant effect on it — Appropriate assessment of the implications for the site — Adverse effect on the integrity of the site — Actual implementation of the conservation measures — Effects on the breeding sites and resting places of the protected species)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN2010120180417EN0026201212Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-441/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 6(1) and (3) — Article 12(1) — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Articles 4 and 5 — ‘Puszcza Białowieska’ Natura 2000 site — Amendment of the forest management plan — Increase in the volume of harvestable timber — Plan or project not directly necessary to the management of the site that is likely to have a significant effect on it — Appropriate assessment of the implications for the site — Adverse effect on the integrity of the site — Actual implementation of the conservation measures — Effects on the breeding sites and resting places of the protected species)’2018/C 200/26Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, H. Krämer, K. Herrmann and E. Kružíková)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Szyszko, Minister for the Environment, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents, and K. Tomaszewski, ekspert)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under:

                     —

                     Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, by adopting an appendix to the forest management plan for the Białowieża Forest District without ascertaining that that appendix would not adversely affect the integrity of the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska;

                     —

                     Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to establish the necessary conservation measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of (i) the natural habitat types listed in Annex I to Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the species listed in Annex II to that directive, and (ii) the species of birds listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, and the regularly occurring migratory species not listed in that annex, for which the site of Community importance and special protection area PLC200004 Puszcza Białowieska were designated;

                     —

                     Article 12(1)(a) and (d) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the strict protection of certain saproxylic beetles, namely the goldstreifiger beetle (Buprestis splendens), the flat bark beetle (Cucujus cinnaberinus), the false darkling beetle (Phryganophilus ruficollis) and Pytho kolwensis, listed in Annex IV to that directive, that is to say, by failing effectively to prohibit the deliberate killing or disturbance of those beetles or the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites in the Białowieża Forest District; and

                     —

                     Article 5(b) and (d) of Directive 2009/147, as amended by Directive 2013/17, by failing to guarantee the protection of the species of birds referred to in Article 1 of that directive, including, in particular, the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) and the three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), that is to say, by failing to ensure that they will not be killed or disturbed during the period of breeding and rearing and that their nests or eggs will not be deliberately destroyed, damaged or removed in the Białowieża Forest District;

            2.

            Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


201805250621897412018/C 200/632482018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180416494911Case T-248/18: Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Cabello Rondón v Conseil
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4910120180416EN0063491491Action brought on 16 April 2018 — Cabello Rondón v Conseil
   (Case T-248/18)2018/C 200/63Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Diosdado Cabello Rondón (Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

            —

            order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and breached his rights of defense and to effective judicial protection by failing to provide access to the evidence allegedly supporting his listing within a reasonable period of time.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made an error of assessment since it failed to demonstrate that the applicant is involved in undermining democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.


201805250551897092018/C 200/492072017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424383922Case T-207/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3820120180424EN0049382392Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)
   (Case T-207/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark hp — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/49Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, 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: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1001/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


201805250561897102018/C 200/502082017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424393911Case T-208/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN3910120180424EN0050391391Judgment of the General Court of 24 April 2018 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (HP)
   (Case T-208/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/50Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, 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: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 (Case R 1002/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Senetic and HP Hewlett Packard Group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Senetic S.A. to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


201805250461897142018/C 200/512132017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425404011Case T-213/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4010120180425EN0051401401Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)
   (Case T-213/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ROMANTIK — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/51Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Lenz and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy) (represented by: A. Wittwer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 (Case R 1257/2016-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Hotel Preidlhof and Romantik Hotels & Restaurants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


201805250421896992018/C 200/522202017TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426404122Case T-220/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark 100 % Pfalz — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4020120180426EN0052402412Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz)
   (Case T-220/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark 100 % Pfalz — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 200/52Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG (Mutterstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Gehweiler and C. Weber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2017 (Case R 1549/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign 100 % Pfalz as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


201806080451931552018/C 221/02242018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201801082211Case C-24/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — István Bán v KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN210120180108EN00022121Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — István Bán v KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács
   (Case C-24/18)2018/C 221/02Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: István Bán

      Defendants: KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács

      Question referred

   Must national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which rights of use created over land used for agricultural or forestry activities are extinguished ex lege, without any financial compensation, where a new owner acquires, in the context of enforcement proceedings, the immovable property subject to the right of use and where the land user has not obtained, in relation to that land, aid for agricultural or rural development that is funded by the European Union or the national budget and that is subject to the obligation of using the land for a certain period of time as established by law, be regarded as a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU?


201806150391954982018/C 231/066842017CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201712066722Case C-684/17 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2017 by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2017 in Case T-83/16: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba SpA v EUIPO
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN620120171206EN00066272Appeal brought on 6 December 2017 by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2017 in Case T-83/16: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba SpA v EUIPO
   (Case C-684/17 P)2018/C 231/06Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (represented by: L. Trevisan, D. Contini, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 17 May 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


201806150641955292018/C 231/412502018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423323321Case T-250/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — RATP v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3210120180423EN0041321332Action brought on 23 April 2018 — RATP v Commission
   (Case T-250/18)2018/C 231/41Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the Commission decision of 21 March 2018 granting partial access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

            —

            in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 339 TFEU.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


201806220241970142018/C 240/161572018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180222131531Case C-157/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-122/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN1310120180222EN0016131153Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-122/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-157/18 P)2018/C 240/16Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Burlington Fashion GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the judgment of the General Court dismissing Tulliallan Burlington Ltd’s (TBL) appeal from the Board of Appeal;

            —

            set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal [or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court to be decided in accordance with the Court of Justice’s decision];

            —

            order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Burlington Fashion GmbH (BFG) to pay the costs incurred by TBL in connection with this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant (‘TBL’) appeals from the General Court's judgment on the basis that the General Court made the following errors of law:

            1)

            Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(5)EUTMR (
                  1
               )

                     a)

                     The General Court erred in failing to make any findings in relation to ‘link’.

                     b)

                     Further, the General Court erred in holding that TBL had not provided the proof necessary to establish detriment to distinctive character or unfair advantage.

                     c)

                     In concluding as it did that the necessary proof had not been provided, the General Court erred by (i) setting the legal bar too high, and (ii) failing to take into account the relevant evidence.

                     d)

                     In fact, the only conclusion available to the General Court was that there was detriment to distinctive character or further or alternatively unfair advantage.

                     e)

                     The General Court wrongly rejected TBL's submissions that the Board of Appeal's decision was vitiated by its evident failure to take into account the submissions made to it.

            2)

            Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(4) EUTMR

                     a)

                     The General Court declined to find that the Board of Appeal should have requested additional submissions on Article 8(4) in circumstances where the only way to ensure procedural justice would have been for the Board of Appeal to invite those submissions or decide the issue on Article 8(5) only and remit the issue of Article 8(4) back to the Opposition Division. The Board of Appeal's decision should have been set aside by the General Court.

                     b)

                     The General Court was wrong to uphold the Board of Appeal's conclusion that TBL had not demonstrated the prerequisites for making out Article 8(4). The General Court ought to have found that the Board of Appeal was in error, set aside the Board of Appeal's findings on Article 8(4) and substituted its own finding that Article 8(4) had been infringed.

      Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(1) EUTMR

            a)

            The General Court erred in applying Praktiker because in the light of the decision of the Court of Justice in EUIPO v Cactus (C-501/15 P; EU:C:2017:750), Praktiker does not apply to the Earlier Marks here.

            b)

            Further or alternatively, the General Court erred in applying Praktiker because that judgment does not apply to shopping arcade services.

            c)

            Even if TBL's Earlier Marks fell within the scope of ‘retail services’ and therefore fell within the ambit of Praktiker, the General Court was wrong to interpret Praktiker as necessarily precluding a finding of confusing similarity.

            d)

            Because it erred in its findings on the application of Praktiker, the General Court failed to either (i) conduct an assessment of the likelihood of confusion or (ii) refer that exercise to the Board of Appeal. In the circumstances, it was obliged to take one of these steps.

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1).


201806220611970232018/C 240/464262017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528414222Case T-426/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4120120180528EN0046412422Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)
   (Case T-426/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/46Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 (Case R 1881/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFUSE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Item Industrietechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201806220831970152018/C 240/612932018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180510525322Case T-293/18: Action brought on 10 May 2018 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5220120180510EN0061522532Action brought on 10 May 2018 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission
   (Case T-293/18)2018/C 240/61Language of the case: Latvian
      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina and V. Soņeca)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Annul final Commission letter C(2018) 1418 of 12 March 2018, by which the Commission defined its position, and order that institution to adopt a position which does not produce adverse legal effects for Latvia.

            —

            Order the European Commission to bear Latvia’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, Latvia submits that, by defining its position, the Commission has infringed not only Article 263 TFEU, thus creating adverse legal effects for Latvia, but also Article 17(1) TEU, together with Article 3(1)(d) TFEU, Article 38 TFEU and Article 335 TFEU which require the Commission to guarantee that Norway correctly observes the commitments made by that State under the Treaty of Paris (
         1
      ) regarding the rights of European Union Member States to non-discriminatory access to fish in the fishing zone of Svalbard.
   (
         1
      )	Treaty between Norway, The United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Ireland, the British overseas Dominions and Sweden concerning Spitsbergen signed in Paris 9th February 1920. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/282051-par-ligumu-starp-norvegiju-amerikas-savienotajam-valstim-daniju-franciju-italiju-japanu-niderlandi-lielbritaniju-un


201806220071970782018/C 240/313032018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503272821Case C-303/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16, Le Pen v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2710120180503EN0031271282Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16, Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case C-303/18 P)2018/C 240/31Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Appellant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16;

      and accordingly,

            —

            annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 320026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;

            —

            annul debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the appellant that the decision of the Secretary-General of 29 January 2016 had found a debt on the part of the appellant and had ordered recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance;

            —

            make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that he has suffered;

            —

            make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

            —

            order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

            1.

            Ground involving a question of public policy: Infringement by the General Court of the appellant’s rights of the defence — Infringement of essential procedural requirements
            By failing to order the Parliament to comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the General Court failed to ensure a fair and adversarial debate. The Parliament has the administrative file and the OLAF file and can access those files. Evidence pertaining to the work carried out may be contained in both files without having been shared with the appellant.

            2.

            Infringement of EU law by the General Court — Errors of law and errors in the characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and the evidence by the General Court — Discriminatory and, by extension, fumus persecutionis — Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legality

                     a.

                     No enquiries in relation to other parties
                     The General Court refused to acknowledge that M. Schulz’s initiative was discriminatory, even though it was directed solely against the Front National and no other parties. Such proceedings should have been initiated in relation to all French parties, other parties in other Member States and dozens of members of the European Parliament.

                     b.

                     Discrimination in relation to M. Schulz’s personal situation and his use of Parliamentary staff
                     The General Court refused to hear M. Schulz and K. Welle, even though the appellant had submitted evidence of unlawful behaviour on the part of the former President of the Parliament without any proceedings having been brought against the latter. The General Court failed to make reference to the documents supplied, which constitutes an error of fact with legal consequences.

                     c.

                     Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment
                     Contrary to the statement of the General Court, there are a number of cases of violations of the implementing measures in which the Parliament did not seek reimbursement.

            3.

            Substantive unlawfulness of the contested acts

                     a.

                     Manifest error of assessment on the part of the General Court
                     Contrary to the assertion of the General Court, if the addendum constituted essential proof of the work carried out, it was for the Parliament to establish the appellant’s failure to submit it, following reminders. The General Court thus reversed the burden of proof and committed an error of fact with legal consequences.

                     b.

                     Evidencing working time and mode of proof
                     The General Court misinterpreted the Secretary-General’s sentence which requires proof in relation to all the working time carried out during the relevant period, and not ‘proof of compliance with the implementing measures relating to work’.
                     The General Court cannot claim the existence of an obligation where Parliament has acknowledged that there is none, as recorded in the transcript of the hearing before the General Court, and where it is not provided for in the implementing measures. The General Court erred in law.

                     c.

                     Work carried out
                     The appellant submits two new documents before the Court, on the basis of Article 127 of the Rules of Procedure.

                     d.

                     Infringement of the principle of proportionality
                     Contrary to the assertion of the General Court, there was no unconditional obligation on the Parliament to recover sums in relation to all five years when only three years were at issue. That infringement of the principle of proportionality justifies the setting aside of the judgment.

                     e.

                     External contracts
                     Neither the Parliament, nor subsequently the General Court, have established that J.-F. Jalkh had any professional links to third parties liable to be detrimental to the appellant or the dignity of Parliament or to lead to a conflict of interest.


201806220061970512018/C 240/021472016CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805172211Case C-147/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the question of whether the contract is within the scope of that directive — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘seller or supplier’ — Higher educational establishment financed mainly by public funds — Contract for an interest-free repayment plan for registration fees and share of costs of a study trip)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN210120180517EN00022121Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers
   (Case C-147/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Examination by the national court of its own motion of the question of whether the contract is within the scope of that directive — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘seller or supplier’ — Higher educational establishment financed mainly by public funds — Contract for an interest-free repayment plan for registration fees and share of costs of a study trip)’2018/C 240/02Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karel de Grote — Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW

      Defendant: Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court giving judgment in default and which has the power, under national procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national public policy laws is required to examine of its own motion whether the contract containing that term falls within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that term is unfair.

            2.

            Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court, Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a free educational establishment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by contract, has agreed with one of its students to provide repayment facilities for sums due by the latter in respect of registration fees and costs connected with a study trip, must be regarded, in the context of that contract, as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13, with the result that that contract falls within the scope of application of that directive.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


201806220731970872018/C 240/474272017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528424211Case T-427/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4210120180528EN0047421421Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2018 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)
   (Case T-427/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark EFUSE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/47Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 (Case R 1882/2016-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign EFUSE as an EU trade mark,

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1)

            Dismisses the action;

            2)

            Orders Item Industrietechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201806220801970642018/C 240/622972018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180508535421Case T-297/18: Action brought on 8 May 2018 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5310120180508EN0062531542Action brought on 8 May 2018 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr)
   (Case T-297/18)2018/C 240/62Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard Technologies GmbH (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Striatum Ventures BV (Rosmalen, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark supr — EU trade mark No 13 163 746

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 in Case R 2028/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806220331970312018/C 240/033252016CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805173311Case C-325/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 2010/28/EU — Article 3(1) — Procedure for re-evaluation by Member States, authorised plant protection products — Time limit — Extension)
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN310120180517EN00033131Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA
   (Case C-325/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 2010/28/EU — Article 3(1) — Procedure for re-evaluation by Member States, authorised plant protection products — Time limit — Extension)’2018/C 240/03Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA

      Defendants: Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Commission Directive 2010/28/EU of 23 April 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include the active substance metalaxyl must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit that it lays down, expiring on 31 December 2010, to allow Member State to amend or withdraw, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metalaxyl as an active substance, is a mandatory time limit, which cannot be extended by those Member States.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


201806220471970572018/C 240/633052018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516545411Case T-305/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Klyuyev v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5410120180516EN0063541541Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-305/18)2018/C 240/63Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

            —

            Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and

            —

            Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5),

      insofar as those measures apply to the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1(1) of the contested decision and Article 3(1) of the contested regulation is satisfied.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the Council’s assumption that the Applicant’s treatment in Ukraine complied with fundamental human rights.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial protection.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s rights to property and reputation.