title: Case C-329/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ — Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — ENEA S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
   (Case C-329/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’ - Obligation on a limited liability company in the energy sector, wholly owned by the State, to purchase energy produced by cogeneration with the production of heat))
   (2017/C 382/05)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ENEA S.A.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, placing an obligation on both private and public undertakings to purchase electricity produced by cogeneration with the production of heat does not constitute intervention by the State or through State resources.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-563/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol (Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 44/09 and F 105/12)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol
   (Case T-563/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Europol - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period - Compensation - Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal - Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F 44/09 and F 105/12))
   (2017/C 382/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Dammingh and N. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and I.Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of Europol of 29 July 2014 not to renew for an indefinite period the contract awarded to the applicant and to allocate a sum of EUR 10 000 to her on account of the length of the procedure and the prolongation of her state of uncertainty and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Brigitte Knöll to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-120/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-634/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/53

         Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Pint v Commission
   (Case T-634/17)
   (2017/C 382/66)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2755260;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017)5145 final of 17 July 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: The protective purpose of investigations would not be undermined by the disclosure of the contested documents
               The subject matter of EU Pilot Case 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts.
               Negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent.
               The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would rather support that purpose since only a public discussion can alter the case-law of the Hungarian courts.

               2.

               Second plea in law: There is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the contested documents
               It is in the public interest to make the documents publicly available as this would make it possible for:

                           —

                           the legal culture of the Hungarian courts to change;

                           —

                           the Hungarian Government’ understanding of the interpretation of fundamental rights to be discussed publicly throughout the European Union;

                           —

                           a public discussion on the Commission’s understanding in relation to the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European and of the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to be initiated;

                           —

                           the internal market to be protected; and

                           —

                           the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made clear to citizens.


title: Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation — Rights of the defence — Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself — Fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement — Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) — Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed — Equal treatment)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation - Rights of the defence - Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself - Fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement - Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) - Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 382/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: LG Electronics Inc. (represented by: G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, advocaten), Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J.K. de Pree and S. Molin, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

      OJ C 27, 25.1.2016


title: Case T-138/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission (State aid — Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform — Decision finding no State aid — Non-economic services of general interest)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Aanbestedingskalender and Others v Commission
   (Case T-138/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Financing measures granted by the Netherlands authorities for the creation and introduction of the TenderNed electronic procurement platform - Decision finding no State aid - Non-economic services of general interest))
   (2017/C 382/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Aanbestedingskalender BV (Ede, Netherlands), Negometrix BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), CTM Solution BV (Breukelen, Netherlands), Stillpoint Applications BV (Amsterdam), Huisinga Beheer BV (Amsterdam), (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and M. Noort, acting as Agents) and Slovak Republic, (represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9548 final of 18 December 2014 on State aid SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aanbestedingskalender BV, Negometrix BV, CTM Solution BV, Stillpoint Applications BV and Huisinga Beheer BV to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Slovakia to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case T-652/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/57

         Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Eddy’s Snack Company v EUIPO — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Eddy’s Snackcompany)
   (Case T-652/17)
   (2017/C 382/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH (Lügde, Germany) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ — Application for registration No 14 363 931

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 in Case R 1999/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               definitively reject the other party’s opposition to trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ submitted by Eddy’s Snack Company GmbH;

               —

               order EUIPO to allow trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ to proceed to registration for all designated goods;

               —

               at the very least, order EUIPO to grant trade mark application No 14363931 ‘Eddy’s Snackcompany’ for all designated goods in Classes 29, 31 and 32;

               —

               order the other party or EUIPO jointly or individually to pay the applicant’s costs, disbursements and fees in the proceedings before the Court and in the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-411/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL — Earlier EU word mark GAP — Cross-appeal — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v EUIPO — Gap (ITM) (GAPPOL)
   (Case T-411/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GAPPOL - Earlier EU word mark GAP - Cross-appeal - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
   (2017/C 382/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM) and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 May 2015 (Case R 686/2013-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark), the application for registration in respect of goods falling within Class 20 and corresponding to the description ‘furniture’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case T-765/15: Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — BelTechExport v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Suspension of measures — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Right to be heard — Error of assessment)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/39

         Judgment of the General Court of (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — BelTechExport v Council
   (Case T-765/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Suspension of measures - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to be heard - Error of assessment))
   (2017/C 382/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BelTechExport ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and E. Koškins, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1957 of 29 October 2015 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 149), and of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1948 of 29 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2015 L 284, p. 62), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BelTechExport ZAO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case T-673/17: Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/59

         Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission
   (Case T-673/17)
   (2017/C 382/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium) and Région wallonne (Jambes, Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final);

               —

               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law. In their opinion, from the outset the Commission disregarded Article 93 TFEU, which institutes specific rules for the transport sector and, accordingly, for ports, thus failing to take account of the intention of the European legislature.
   The Commission’s assessment is not justified either in fact or in law and runs counter to the text of Article 1 of the Belgian Income Code (CIR) and the prerogatives of the public authorities to define non-economic activities of general interest.
   Nor is the Commission’s position consistent with the Proposal for a Directive of 16 March 2011 (COM/2011/0121 final) on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) which provides, even for commercial companies, for an exemption from tax in respect of subsidies directly linked to the acquisition, construction or improvement of fixed assets.
   Furthermore, by giving Belgium formal notice to amend its tax legislation, the Commission is seeking to bypass the taxation competence of the Member States, by imposing a tax harmonisation which is without its competence under Article 113 TFEU. It thus omits to take account of the Member States’ prerogatives to define public service activities and the scope of direct taxation, the obligation to ensure the proper functioning of services of general interest (‘SGIs’) necessary to social and economic cohesion and the discretionary organisation of the organisation of SGIs. The European legislature devolved to the Member States the competence to exempt from taxation activities which they define at their absolute discretion to be public service activities.
   The applicants are of the opinion that the essential activities of the internal Walloon ports are SGIs, which are not governed, in accordance with EU law, by the competition rules.
   Finally, the European criteria for the definition of State aid are not satisfied in the present case, in particular as regards the criterion of selectiveness.


title: Case T-637/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/55

         Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-637/17)
   (2017/C 382/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-393/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/61

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO — eBay (dA/tA/bA/y)
   (Case T-393/16) (1)

   (2017/C 382/75)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eight Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case C-132/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 — Deduction of input tax — Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party — Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person — Service supplied free of charge to the third party — Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs — Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD
   (Case C-132/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 - Deduction of input tax - Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party - Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person - Service supplied free of charge to the third party - Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs - Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person))
   (2017/C 382/19)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

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

      Defendant:‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case C-177/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Concept of ‘unfair price’ — Fees collected by a copyright management organisation — Comparison with rates charged in other Member States — Choice of reference Member States — Assessment criteria for prices — Calculation of the fine)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-177/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Concept of ‘unfair price’ - Fees collected by a copyright management organisation - Comparison with rates charged in other Member States - Choice of reference Member States - Assessment criteria for prices - Calculation of the fine))
   (2017/C 382/21)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra — Latvijas Autoru apvienība

      Defendant: Konkurences padome

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Trade between Member States is capable of being affected by the level of rates set by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders, with the result that Article 102 TFEU may be applicable.

               2.

               For the purposes of examining whether a copyright management organisation applies unfair prices within the meaning of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, it is appropriate to compare its rates with those applicable in neighbouring Member States as well as with those applicable in other Member States adjusted in accordance with the PPP index, provided that the reference Member States have been selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria and that the comparisons are made on a consistent basis. It is permissible to compare the rates charged in one or several specific user segments if there are indications that the excessive nature of the fees affects those segments.

               3.

               The difference between the rates compared must be regarded as appreciable if that difference is significant and persistent. Such a difference is indicative of abuse of a dominant position and it is for the copyright management organisation holding a dominant position to show that its prices are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders.

               4.

               In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-177/17 and C-178/17: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17) v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of a sufficiently close connection — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/12

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17) v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Joined Cases C-177/17 and C-178/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Lack of a sufficiently close connection - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 374/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Demarchi Gino Sas (C-177/17), Graziano Garavaldi (C-178/17)

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte (Regional Administrative Court, Piedmont, Italy) by the decisions of 11 January 2017.

      (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-581/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/40

         Action brought on 25 August 2017 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout textile Agenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)
   (Case T-581/17)
   (2017/C 374/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asics Corporation (Kobe, Japan) (represented by: M. Polo Carreño, M. Granado Carpenter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Van Lieshout textiel Agenturen BV (Berkel-Enschot, The Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of four crossing lines) — Application for registration No 11 952 678

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 in Case R 2129/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of the duty of the Board to revise the legality of the first instance decision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-484/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 August 2017 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 10 August 2017 — K v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-484/17)
   (2017/C 374/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: K

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Question referred

   Should Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251[, p. 12]) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for an autonomous residence permit on the part of a foreign national who has resided lawfully for more than five years on the territory of a Member State for family-reunification purposes may be rejected because of non-compliance with conditions relating to integration laid down in national law?


title: Case T-564/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure — Payment in instalments — Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2017 — Quimitécnica.com and de Mello v Commission
   (Case T-564/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Fine imposed jointly and severally following a settlement procedure - Payment in instalments - Decision requiring the provision of a bank guarantee from a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 374/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA (Lordelo, Portugal) and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of the decision allegedly set out in the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 8 October 2010 concerning payment of the fines imposed on the applicants for infringement of competition rules by Commission Decision C(2010) 5004 final of 20 July 2010 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.886 — Animal feed phosphates), in so far as that letter requires the provision of a guarantee from a bank that has received a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating as a condition for granting the applicants’ request for additional time to pay the fine jointly and severally imposed on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA and José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and the proceedings before the General Court prior to the appeal;

               4.

               Orders Quimitécnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, José de Mello —Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais and the Commission each to bear their own respective costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case T-609/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark BASIC — Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG — Relative ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Repsol YPF v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)
   (Case T-609/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BASIC - Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, and subsequently by J. Erdozain López, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg and H. Bickel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Basic Lebensmittelhandel and Repsol, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2015 (Case R 2384/2013-1);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Repsol YPF, SA;

               3.

               Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-6/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Withholding tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5(1) — Exemption — Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States — Presumption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-6/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5(1) - Exemption - Dividends distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company controlled directly or indirectly by one or more residents of third States - Presumption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse))
   (2017/C 374/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA

      Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, first, and Article 49 TFEU, secondly, must be interpreted as precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects the grant of the tax advantage provided for by Article 5(1) of that directive — namely, the exemption from withholding tax of profits distributed by a resident subsidiary to a non-resident parent company, where that parent company is directly or indirectly controlled by one or more residents of third States — to the condition that that parent company establish that the principal purpose or one of the principal purposes of the chain of interests is not to take advantage of that exemption.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-247/16: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Notion of ‘contract of sale’ — Inapplicability of that directive — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/6

         Judgment of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert
   (Case C-247/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Notion of ‘contract of sale’ - Inapplicability of that directive - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 374/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heike Schottelius

      Defendant: Falk Seifert

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hannover (Hanover Regional Court, Germany) by decision of 22 April 2016.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-514/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/36

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB
   (Case T-514/17)
   (2017/C 374/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Antonia Elisenda Garriga Sadurní (Barcelona, Spain) and Josep María Martí Fonts (Barcelona) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-270/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ — Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance — Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case — Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas
   (Case C-270/17 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance - Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case - Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings))
   (2017/C 374/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Tadas Tupikas

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where the issuing Member State has provided for a criminal procedure involving several degrees of jurisdiction which may thus give rise to successive judicial decisions, at least one of which has been handed down in absentia, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as relating only to the instance at the end of which the decision is handed down which finally rules on the guilt of the person concerned and imposes a penalty on him, such as a custodial sentence, following a re-examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case.
   An appeal proceeding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in principle falls within that concept. It is nonetheless up to the referring court to satisfy itself that it has the characteristics set out above.

      (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-539/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/22

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2017 by Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE v European Commission
   (Case C-539/17 P)
   (2017/C 374/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2017 in Case T-65/15 Talanton AE — Symvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ypiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission;

               —

               uphold the company’s action of 6 February 2015;

               —

               dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               (1)

               Incorrect application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement at issue — Infringement of the provisions concerning subcontracting under the financial regulation in force.

                           —

                           The General Court assessed Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code incorrectly, as regards application of the principle of good faith in the performing of the agreement.

                           —

                           The General Court erred as to the interpretation of the provisions concerning subcontracting, as laid down in Article 130 et seq. of Regulation (EU) No 2342/2002 and in contractual clauses I.II.2.4 and II.13.1 of the Framework Contract signed under number FP7/2009/1.

               (2)

               Incorrect interpretation and application of a contractual clause and manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence.

                           —

                           The General Court erred as to the interpretation of clause II.22., Financial audits and controls, of Annex II to the agreement that was signed, mistakenly rejecting claims in that regard by the applicant/appellant.

               (3)

               Manifestly incorrect assessment of the evidence and defective reasoning.

                           —

                           The General Court erred as it manifestly distorted key evidence that was relied on by the appellant and admitted by the respondent.


title: Case T-518/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/37

         Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB
   (Case T-518/17)
   (2017/C 374/56)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Gorka Olarreaga Marques (Madrid, Spain) and María-Aránzazu Saralegui Reyzabal (Madrid) (represented by: R. Jiménez Velasco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board agreed of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-271/17 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ — Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously — Decision handing down a cumulative sentence — Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person — Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal — Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings — Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard — Consequences for the executing judicial authority)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek
   (Case C-271/17 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously - Decision handing down a cumulative sentence - Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person - Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal - Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings - Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard - Consequences for the executing judicial authority))
   (2017/C 374/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as referring not only to the proceedings which gave rise to the decision on appeal, where that decision, after a fresh examination of the case on the merits, finally determined the guilt of the person concerned, but also to subsequent proceedings, such as those that led to the judgment handing down the cumulative sentence at issue here, at the end of which the decision that finally amended the level of the initial sentence was handed down, inasmuch as the authority which adopted the latter decision enjoyed a certain discretion in that regard.

               2.

               Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person concerned has not appeared in person in the relevant proceeding or, as the case may be, in the relevant proceedings for the application of Article 4a(1) of that Framework Decision, as amended, and where neither the information contained in the standard form for a European arrest warrant annexed to that Framework Decision nor the information obtained pursuant to Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision, as amended, provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence of one of the situations referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.
               However, that Framework Decision, as amended, does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances characterising the case brought before it in order to ensure that the rights of the defence of the person concerned are respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-473/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection against extradition)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/11

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Linz — Austria) — Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR v Eugen Adelsmayr
   (Case C-473/15) (1)

   ((Requests for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Extradition of a national of a Member State of the European Union to a third State where he risks being subjected to the death penalty - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Protection against extradition))
   (2017/C 374/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bezirksgericht Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Schotthöfer & Florian Steiner GbR

      Defendant: Eugen Adelsmayr

      Operative part of the order

   Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a request for extradition originating from a third country concerning a Union citizen who, in exercising his freedom of movement, leaves his Member State of origin in order to reside on the territory of another Member State, must be rejected by the latter Member State where that citizen runs a serious risk of being subjected to the death penalty in the event of extradition.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case C-543/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/23

         Action brought on 15 September 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-543/17)
   (2017/C 374/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, L. Nicolae and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing, by 1 January 2016 at the latest, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a fine in the sum of EUR 54 639,36 per diem from the date of delivery of the judgment in this action for failure to fulfil the obligation of communicating the measures transposing Directive 2014/61;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By virtue of Article 13 of Directive 2014/61, the Member States were required to adopt the national transposing measures by 1 January 2016 at the latest. The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.
   In its action, the Commission proposes that a daily fine of EUR 54 639,36 be imposed on the Kingdom of Belgium.


title: Case T-350/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
   (Case T-350/13) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Fernández Castellanos, M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo and subsequently by M. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

               3.

               Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-592/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/42

         Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Serra Noguera and Others v SRB
   (Case T-592/17)
   (2017/C 374/64)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Juan Carlos Serra Noguera (Sant Jordi de ses Salines, Spain) and 56 other applicants (represented by: R. García-Bragado Acín, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               acknowledge the filing of this action and take note of this APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based;

               —

               Given that it is practically impossible to reverse the implementation of that decision, declare that SRB is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the applicants, which corresponds to the amount of their investment or the amount determined at the time of enforcement of the judgment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-261/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Direct support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Milk quota system — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 — Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-261/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Direct support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Milk quota system - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 - Replacement of on-the-spot checks of agricultural holdings by administrative checks))
   (2017/C 374/48)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Lewis, G. Braga da Cruz and J. Guillem Carrau, then A. Lewis and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), including that carried out by the Portuguese Republic in the context of ‘[o]ther Direct Aid — [a]rticle 68 — 72 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009’ for the financial years 2011 to 2013 of a total amount of EUR 385 762,22.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case C-437/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 July 2017 — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH
   (Case C-437/17)
   (2017/C 382/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

      Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

      Question referred

   Are Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that in the main proceedings (Paragraph 3(2)(1) in conjunction with Paragraph 3(3) and Paragraph 2(1) of the Urlaubsgesetz (Law on holidays, ‘the UrlG’)), under which a worker who has a total of 25 years of service, but has not completed these with the same Austrian employer, is entitled to only five weeks of annual holiday, whereas a worker who has completed 25 years of service with the same Austrian employer is entitled to six weeks of holiday per year.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: Case C-184/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 2008/115/EC — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Residence of a national of a Member State within the territory of another Member State despite a prohibition on entering that State — Lawfulness of a decision to withdraw a registration certificate and a further expulsion decision — Possibility to rely, exceptionally, on the unlawfulness of an earlier decision — Translation obligation)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea v Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis
   (Case C-184/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Directive 2008/115/EC - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Residence of a national of a Member State within the territory of another Member State despite a prohibition on entering that State - Lawfulness of a decision to withdraw a registration certificate and a further expulsion decision - Possibility to rely, exceptionally, on the unlawfulness of an earlier decision - Translation obligation))
   (2017/C 382/23)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ovidiu-Mihăiţă Petrea

      Defendant: Ypourgos Esoterikon kai Dioikitikis Anasygrotisis

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a Member State from, first, withdrawing a registration certificate wrongly issued to an EU citizen who was still subject to an exclusion order, and, secondly, adopting a removal order against him based on the sole finding that the exclusion order was still valid.

               2.

               Directive 2004/38 and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals do not preclude a decision to return an EU citizen, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from being adopted by the same authorities and according to the same procedure as a decision to return a third-country national staying illegally referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, provided that the transposition measures of Directive 2004/38 which are more favourable to that EU citizen are applied.

               3.

               The principle of effectiveness does not preclude a legal practice according to which a national of a Member State who is subject to a return order in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings may not rely, in support of an action against that order, on the unlawfulness of the exclusion order previously adopted against him, in so far as the person concerned had effectively the possibility to contest that latter order in good time in the light of the provisions of Directive 2004/38.

               4.

               Article 30 of Directive 2004/38 requires the Member States to take every appropriate measure with a view to ensuring that the person concerned understands the content and implications of a decision adopted under Article 27(1) of that directive but that it does not require that decision to be notified to him in a language he understands or which it is reasonable to assume he understands, although he did not bring an application to that effect.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-633/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/52

         Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission
   (Case T-633/17)
   (2017/C 382/65)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030;

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
   According to the applicant, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the contested documents since making the documents available to the public would make it possible for:

               —

               the economic interests of consumers to be protected;

               —

               the internal market to be protected;

               —

               the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed;

               —

               democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and

               —

               the advantages of Hungary’s membership of the European Union to be made evident to citizens.


title: Case T-386/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO — Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
   (Case T-386/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2017/C 374/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2015 (Case R 2570/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 April 2013 (R 2570/2013-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

               3.

               Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-509/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Christa Plessers v Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 21 August 2017 — Christa Plessers v Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat
   (Case C-509/17)
   (2017/C 374/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christa Plessers

      Defendants: Prefaco NV, Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Is the right of option for the transferee under Article 61(4) (now Article 61(3)) of the Belgian Law of 31 January 2009 on the continuity of undertakings, as part of Chapter 4 of Title 4 of that law under which the ‘judicial reorganisation by transfer under judicial supervision’ is regulated, in so far as that ‘judicial reorganisation by transfer under judicial supervision’ is applied with a view to maintaining all or part of the transferor or its activities, consistent with Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular with Articles 3 and 5 of that directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Case T-625/17: Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/47

         Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB
   (Case T-625/17)
   (2017/C 374/70)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Antonio Vallina Fonseca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

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

               —

               Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-566/17: Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Molina García v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/39

         Action brought on 21 August 2017 — Molina García v SRB
   (Case T-566/17)
   (2017/C 374/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jerónimo Molina García (Puente Genil, Spain) (represented by: A. Velasco Albalá, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that General Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Accept the consequences of the decision of the Single Resolution Board which was adopted erroneously, either because of lack of transparency or because of failure to take prior preventive measures which would have avoided the loss of shareholders’ capital through its depreciation and, consequently, order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of the loss resulting from the erroneous procedure and decision, namely EUR 7 805,29.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-275/16: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/24

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Comune di Balzola, Comune di Borgo San Martino, Comune di Camino, e.a. v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, in the presence of: Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-275/16) (1)

   (2017/C 374/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-682/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Working conditions — Overtime — Chauffeur in grade AST 6 — Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime — Equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Errors in law — Distortion of the facts)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — Wanègue v Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-682/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Working conditions - Overtime - Chauffeur in grade AST 6 - Withdrawal of entitlement to the fixed allowance for overtime - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Errors in law - Distortion of the facts))
   (2017/C 374/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrick Wanègue (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions (represented by: J. C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015, Wanègue v Committee of the Regions (F 21/15, EU:F:2015:102), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Patrick Wanègue to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Committee of the Regions in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-620/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — the Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic) (European trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic — Earlier national word mark idéa logistique — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2017 — the Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)
   (Case T-620/16) (1)

   ((European trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic - Earlier national word mark idéa logistique - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 374/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: The Logistical Approach (Uden, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2016 (Case R 1435/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Logistical Approach BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-515/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/37

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Sánchez Valverde e Hijos v SRB
   (Case T-515/17)
   (2017/C 374/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sánchez Valverde e Hijos, SA (Montcada Reixac, Spain) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 508 505,50.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case C-488/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Carmelina Scaglione
   (Case C-488/17)
   (2017/C 374/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Carmelina Scaglione

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

               2.

               Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

               3.

               Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

               4.

               Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

      (1)  2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).


title: Case T-501/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — D'Agostino v Commission (Civil Service — Contractual staff — Article 3a of the CEOS — Contract not renewed — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of care — Interest of the service)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2017 — D'Agostino v Commission
   (Case T-501/16 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Contractual staff - Article 3a of the CEOS - Contract not renewed - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Interest of the service))
   (2017/C 374/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi D'Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, seeking, firstly, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contractual staff and, secondly, compensation for the loss which he allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Luigi D’Agostino to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of Case F-93/12 and to bear his own costs of Case T-670/13 P;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs of Case T-670/13 P.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012 (Case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-93/12).