title: Case T-19/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/61

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Fastweb v Commission
      (Case T-19/19)
      (2019/C 82/74)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Fastweb SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Armati, A. Guarino and E. Cerchi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 31 August 2018 by which the Commission authorised the merger in Case M.9041 — HUTCHINSON/WIND TRE pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Regulation’);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation: manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in that the Commission considered that the entry of a new Mobile Network Operator (MNO) was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had brought about the success of H3G.

                              —

                              In that regard, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in that the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had brought about the success of the entry of H3G. In Case M.7758, the Commission had already, in particular, not concerned itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years operated within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation and manifest error of assessment of the MNO package.

                              —

                              In that regard, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment as regards the package of commitments. In particular, the comparison with H3G’s frequency holdings pre-merger in itself raises serious doubts regarding the adequacy of the proposed spectrum allocation. In addition, the Commission relied on future, uncertain events, such as the participation of the new MNO in future calls for tenders, without, however, taking into account the high costs connected with the impending renewal and refarming of the transferred frequencies. The Commission accepted the transfer of an inadequate number of sites, relying on uncertain agreements with the Tower Companies. Lastly, the transitional agreement concluded with the notifying parties, which has a structure based on capacity, strongly reduces the incentive to invest.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation, manifest error of assessment and failure to conduct a proper inquiry by basing the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that price is the only significant competitive factor, disregarding quality and convergence.

                              —

                              The applicant refers to the failure to conduct a proper inquiry in that the Commission based the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that price is the only significant competitive factor in the relevant market. The Commission disregarded the fact that network coverage and quality are of comparable importance and should not have confined itself to a static analysis of the preferences of a very biased sample of users in the ‘low spender’ category. In addition, the Commission also disregarded the potential importance of the convergence, which is decisive for a new entrant, which requires additional bargaining levers compared with an established operator (such as H3G). The selection of an acquirer capable of addressing the converging demand would have ensured greater effectiveness and sustainability of the commitments over time.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation and failure to conduct a proper inquiry in that the Commission failed to consider that the merger pursued an anti-competitive objective.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that whereas, on the one hand, the Commission accepted that, for the parties, the reasons underlying the merger was market repair, on the other hand, it did not undertake any analysis of the anti-competitive coordination pursued by the parties by means of the merger. The new decision is therefore vitiated by that serious failure to conduct a proper inquiry.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation and manifest error of assessment as regards the suitability of the commitments intended to meet the concerns regarding coordinated action on the retail market and failure to conduct a proper inquiry also in respect of the compliance of roaming agreements and the national multi-operator core network (MOCN) with Article 101 TFEU.

                              —

                              The applicant complains that the suitability of the commitments intended to meet the concerns regarding coordinated action on the retail market was incorrectly assessed. In order to be able to act in a truly aggressive way and ‘break’ the collusive equilibrium, the new entrant would have to be able to act independently of other MNOs. However, the formula selected for the making available of resources (roaming agreements and national MOCN) creates a close degree of dependence between new MNO and the Joint Venture for a protracted period, as demonstrated by the most recent auctions for the award of frequencies in Italy and, more generally, the commercial policies of all MNOs. The contested decision is further vitiated by a failure to carry out a proper inquiry as regards the compatibility of the roaming agreements and national MOCN with Article 101 TFEU.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 of the Regulation and manifest error of assessment as regards the suitability of the commitments intended to respond to the competition concerns on the wholesale access market and call origination on mobile networks.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission erred in its reconstruction of the counter-factual scenario and in considering that Iliad will have an incentive to offer such services notwithstanding (i) the lack of measures to that effect and (ii) that operator’s experience in France. On the contrary, the commitments encourage the new MNO to target and acquire specifically and solely the customers of Mobile Virtual Network Operators.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of the Regulation, errors of assessment and breach of the principle of sound administration.

                              —

                              The applicant alleges in that regard infringement of Article 8(2) of the Regulation (error of assessment) and breach of the principle of sound administration (failure to conduct a proper inquiry) in that it accepted Iliad as a suitable acquirer without taking into consideration the risks to the effectiveness of the commitments relating to the entry of an operator with Iliad’s characteristics and without adequate guarantees having been provided in the commitments, in particular with regard to network coverage/quality.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and failure to conduct a proper inquiry in that the Commission failed to assess in any way the reasons underlying the new merger.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission itself, already in the 2016 decision, had indicated that ‘market repair’ was the reason for the merger, without nevertheless analysing the implications. In the new decision, the Commission, once again, did not take that essential fact into consideration or carry out any assessment of the objectives of the new operation, including with respect to the fulfilment of the reasons underlying the original operation. Furthermore, the Commission — in breach of its own practice and case-law — failed to assess the immediate effects of the removal of competitive pressure on the market linked to the co-decision power of VEON.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in that the Commission did not consider it necessary, in the light of the changing market conditions, to adjust the commitments.

                              —

                              The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission expressed the view that there had been no significant changes in the relevant market compared to the time of adoption of the 2016 decision in Case M.7758, without, however, giving adequate reasons.


title: Case T-20/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/64

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
      (Case T-20/19)
      (2019/C 82/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

         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: Application for European Union word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 872

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 77/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  reverse the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the EUTM No 15 730 872 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

                  —

                  award the costs to the applicant.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-21/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/64

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)
      (Case T-21/19)
      (2019/C 82/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

         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: Application for European Union word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  reverse the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

                  —

                  award the costs to the applicant.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-22/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

text:
                  4.3.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 82/65

         Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission
         (Case T-22/19)
         (2019/C 82/77)
         Language of the case: Spanish

            Parties

            Applicants: Roser Noguer Enríquez (Andorra la Vella, Andorra),  TB (*1), Successors D’Higini Cierco García, SA (Andorra la Vella), Cierco Martínez 2 2003, SL (Andorra la Vella) (represented by: J. Álvarez González and S. San Felipe Menéndez, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Commission

            Form of order sought

         The applicants claim that the Court should admit the action to establish the non-contractual liability of the European Union for damage caused by the European Commission in the performance of its duties, as set out in Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU, and, after the appropriate legal procedures have been completed and the proceedings established to that effect have been dealt with, should deliver judgment declaring that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability for the negligent and permissive conduct of the European Commission, order that the applicants be awarded compensation in the amount of EUR 50 220 800 in accordance with the calculations and quantification set out in the expert report accompanying the written application or, in the alternative, in the amount resulting from the expert opinion issued by the expert designated by the Court, together with interest at the statutory rate, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

         In support of their action, the applicants raise the following pleas in law.

                     1.

                     Infringement of the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra and incorrect transposition by the Principality of Andorra, with the Commission’s consent, of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) Specifically, the Commission:

                                 —

                                 failed to fulfil its obligation to verify the ‘one-sided’, premature, self-serving and inadequate transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU carried out by the Principality of Andorra, which deliberately omitted to include the rights and guarantees of shareholders and depositors imposed by EU legislation as necessary counterbalances in intervention processes of the kind in question and even included additional discriminatory measures with regard to other shareholders; and

                                 —

                                 failed to fulfil its obligation to report to the Joint Committee, and where necessary to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Principality of Andorra’s infringement of the Agreement arising from the unlawful transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU, which deprived the applicants of ownership of their shares without the slightest justification on the relevant public interest ground, without respect for fundamental principles such as that of proportionality and without providing for any type of indemnification or compensation as required by law. This results in a significant infringement of overriding principles of the rule of law and/or a system of law and fundamental rights. Indeed, nor did the Commission report (not even as of the present day) the Principality of Andorra’s infringement for the purposes of terminating the Agreement.

                     2.

                     Infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights and guarantees, recognised both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, inter alia: the right to property, the right to sound administration, the right to effective legal protection, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.

                                 —

                                 In that regard, it is claimed that the European Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations had the result that, following the resolution of the institution Banca Privada de Andorra (Private Bank of Andorra, ‘the BPA’), all the shareholders, including the applicants, who own 75,52 % of the shares in the company, were deprived of all their capital without receiving any compensation in return or being able to oppose it.

                                 —

                                 It is also claimed that the inaction of the principal guarantor of the Agreement meant that the applicants’ right to receive, following the resolution of the BPA, what they would have obtained following ordinary insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings was not recognised in Andorran legislation. That right is recognised explicitly and exhaustively in the legislation of the European Union for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, which the Principality of Andorra was required to transpose by virtue of the Agreement.

                                 —

                                 Lastly, neither (i) the right of the shareholders to an assessment of the situation in which they have been placed following the resolution of a financial institution and of the compensation, if any, which has been granted to them, nor (ii) the right to oppose, and defend themselves against, that result of the resolution of the institution, has been incorporated into the Andorran legal order.

                     3.

                     Infringement by the European Commission of its most essential duty to safeguard respect for and the application of EU law and the Treaties of the European Union, in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, by allowing third countries flagrantly to infringe their terms, clearly undermining legal certainty, the credibility of the EU institutions and the legitimate expectations that citizens have in respect of those institutions.

                     4.

                     Conduct on the part of the European Union which entails a sufficiently serious breach of rules of law conferring rights on and/or protecting individuals, which cannot be justified on the basis of the degree of discretion which those rules allow or their complexity or imprecision. The Commission’s negligence caused the applicants specific, actual and certain material damage, there being a clear causal link between the Commission’s conduct and that damage.

                     5.

                     In the alternative, it is alleged that the European Commission has incurred liability on account of its negligence in the negotiation and signing of the Monetary Agreement with the Principality of Andorra, which did not provide for defence and/or complaint mechanisms for the individuals concerned.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.


title: Case T-28/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/67

      Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA)
      (Case T-28/19)
      (2019/C 82/78)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. (Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Mrázek, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aguas de San Martín de Veri, SA (Bisaurri, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant in the proceedings before the General Court

         Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union trade mark VERITEA — Application No 15 592 876

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 499/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the opponent’s opposition;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-30/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/67

      Action brought on 15 January 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission
      (Case T-30/19)
      (2019/C 82/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: China Rubber Industry Association (CRIA) (Beijing, China) and China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (CCCMC) (Beijing) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 of 18 October 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163, in so far as it relates to the applicants and their relevant members; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that by making the injury analysis on the basis of the ‘weighted’ data of the sampled companies, the contested Regulation violates Articles 3(1), (2), (5) and (8) and 17 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘basic Regulation’). (1) Even if assuming the weighting would be allowed, the way in which it was done results in violations of Articles 3(2), (3) and (5) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of retreaded tyres does not allow the Commission to obtain any basis to logically progress its inquiry, in violation of Articles 3(1), (2), (5), (6) and 4(1) of the basic Regulation. The injury and causation analysis that ignores the segmentation between new and retreaded tyres is not based on positive evidence and does not amount to an objective examination in violation of Article 3(2), (5) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the price effects (price undercutting and underselling) and determination the injury elimination level violates Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation, by failing to take into account the significantly higher cost per kilometre of a new tyre as compared to a retreaded tyre and by relying on constructed export prices.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the incoherencies, inconsistencies and absence of a positive and/or objective evidentiary basis of the causation analysis violates Articles 3(2) and (6) of the basic Regulation. The contested Regulation also fails to appropriately examine other known factors to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports contrary to Article 3(2) and (7) of the basic Regulation.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicants and Articles 6(7), 19(1), 19(2), 19(3), 20(2), 20(4) of the basic Regulation by failing to disclose and provide the Applicants with access to information relevant to the injury and dumping determinations.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the adjustment for indirect taxes violates Article 2(10)(b) and 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).


title: Case T-37/19: Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/69

      Action brought on 21 January 2019 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)
      (Case T-37/19)
      (2019/C 82/80)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Cimpress Schweiz GmbH (Winterthur, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impress Media GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

         Mark at issue: EU word mark CIMPRESS — EU mark No 13 147 624

         Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 in Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  on the applicant’s appeal, annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 June 2017 in Case B 2 493 933 and reject the opposition brought by Impress Media GmbH against registration of the mark CIMPRESS No 13 147 624;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and Impress Media GmbH, should it intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-42/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/69

      Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Volkswagen v EUIPO (CROSS)
      (Case T-42/19)
      (2019/C 82/81)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CROSS — Application No 16 366 528

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 in Case R 2500/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and allow registration of EU trade mark application No 163 66 528 for all of the goods and services;

                  —

                  alternatively, annul the contested decision, in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s complaint, and refer the case back to the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-600/17: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Roma — Italy) — Pina Cipollone v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Magistrates — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/7

      Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Roma — Italy) — Pina Cipollone v Ministero della Giustizia
      (Case C-600/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Magistrates - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 112/09)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Giudice di pace di Roma

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pina Cipollone

         Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

         Other party to the proceedings: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa)

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Roma (Justice of the Peace, Rome, Italy) by decision of 25 August 2017 is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-45/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/20

      Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
      (Case T-45/19)
      (2019/C 122/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia), Dorogobuzh OAO (Dorogobuzh, Russia), Acron Switzerland AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and A. Nys, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018; (1) and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs;

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty and it failed to provide sufficient motivation by finding that the Russian Federation was not complying with its World Trade Organisation obligations.
                  The applicants submit that the defendant would have failed to take into account the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation as relevant to the change in the calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants. The defendant would be under the obligation to take into account the commitments made by the Russian Federation regarding the price of gas when investigating the interim review of the duties applicable to the import of ammonium nitrate. Since the defendant would have argued that the Russian Federation would not have been complying with its own Protocol of Accession, the defendant would have acted in breach of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article II of World Trade Organisation Antidumping Agreement. In failing to do so, it would have breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide sufficient motivation, resulting in the breach of the rights of defence of the applicants by finding that the change of circumstances invoked by the applicants was not of a lasting nature.

                              —

                              The applicants submit that, within the scope of the second plea, there would be two separate grounds for annulment of the contested decision. Both grounds relate to the erroneous conclusion that the change of circumstances was not of lasting nature.

                              —

                              In any case, the defendant would have breached its obligation of motivation under Article 296 TFEU by failing to motivate the contested decision in a clear and unequivocal fashion.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 19(2) and 20(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) as well as the applicants’ rights of defence and provided for a lack of legal certainty by failing to provide its dumping calculation.

                              —

                              The defendant would have failed to disclose the final calculation of the dumping margin to the applicants, even though that calculation served as the basis for the findings relating to the continuation and existence of dumping, the lasting nature of the change of circumstances, and also the termination of the partial interim review. If the defendant would have communicated the calculation, it would have allowed the applicants to defend their rights more effectively with regard to the dumping calculation and the findings of dumping as a whole, including the argument relating to the calculation methodology used in the original investigation, which could have had a significant impact on their legal situation.

                              —

                              The applicants submit that the defendant would have infringed Article 19(2) and Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036, the applicants’ rights of defence and the principle of legal certainty by failing to provide the applicants with a meaningful summary of the evidence collected during the investigation or the considerations on the basis of which the defendant proposed to amend the applicants’ anti-dumping margin. The applicants submit that by refusing to provide them with its dumping margin calculation, the defendant would have infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and would have breached the principle of legal certainty.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018 terminating the partial interim review concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 285, 13.11.2018, p. 97).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).


title: Case T-600/16: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2019 — Bandilla and Others v EIB

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/96

      Order of the General Court of 17 April 2019 — Bandilla and Others v EIB
      (Case T-600/16) (1)

      (2019/C 206/85)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-30/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-318/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Oracle Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/28

      Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Oracle Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
      (Case C-318/18) (1)

      (2019/C 220/35)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-776/18: Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — U.B., T.V. v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/29

      Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding — Germany) — U.B., T.V. v Eurowings GmbH
      (Case C-776/18) (1)

      (2019/C 220/36)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.


title: Case C-7/19: Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — QG v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/29

      Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — QG v Germanwings GmbH
      (Case C-7/19) (1)

      (2019/C 220/37)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.


title: Case T-571/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — PT v EIB (Civil service — Members of staff of the EIB — Reports procedure — Career evaluation report — 2014 appraisal exercise — Pre-litigation procedure — Admissibility — Right to be heard — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — PT v EIB
      (Case T-571/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Members of staff of the EIB - Reports procedure - Career evaluation report - 2014 appraisal exercise - Pre-litigation procedure - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Liability - Non-material damage)
      (2019/C 220/42)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: PT (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by G. Nuvoli, E. Raimond, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, and subsequently by G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, B. Wägenbaur, lawyers, and J. Currall, Barrister)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, in the first place, annulment of: (i) the EIB decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (ii) the applicant’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise; (iii) the EIB decisions, for 2015, neither to promote him, grant him an individual bonus nor increase his salary by 1.20% and; in the second place, compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls PT’s appraisal report for the 2014 appraisal exercise;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay PT the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with default interest from the date of delivery of the present judgment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-145/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-749/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Registration of imports — Retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 — Importer’s awareness of the dumping and injury — Further substantial rise in imports likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 10(4)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission
      (Case T-749/16) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Registration of imports - Retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 - Importer’s awareness of the dumping and injury - Further substantial rise in imports likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 10(4)(c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)
      (2019/C 220/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Stemcor London Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, N. Kuplewatzky, T. Maxian Rusche and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 of 29 July 2016 levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 27).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Stemcor London Ltd and Samac Steel Supplies Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-170/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — RW v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Leave in the interests of the service — Automatic retirement — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Scope of the law — Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — RW v Commission
      (Case T-170/17) (1)

      (Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Automatic retirement - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Scope of the law - Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)
      (2019/C 220/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Berscheid and A.-C. Simon, and subsequently by G. Berscheid and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service pursuant to Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, at the same time, to require him to take compulsory retirement pursuant to subparagraph 5 of that provision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 by which RW was placed on leave in the interests of the service and, at the same time, required to take compulsory retirement;

                  2.

                     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by RW, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case T-747/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019. — UPF v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Existing aid — Concept of economic activity — Obligation to state reasons — Distortions of competition and effect on trade between Member States — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019. — UPF v Commission
      (Case T-747/17) (1)

      (State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Concept of economic activity - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Principle of sound administration)
      (2019/C 220/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Union des Ports de France — UPF (Paris, France) (represented by C. Vannini and E. Moraïtou, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2116 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of ports in France (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Union des ports de France — UPF to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-754/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission (State aid — General corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Existing aid — Concept of economic activity — Services of general interest — Principle of sound administration — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) v Commission
      (Case T-754/17) (1)

      (State aid - General corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Concept of economic activity - Services of general interest - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment)
      (2019/C 220/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2116 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of ports in France (OJ 2017, L 332, p. 24).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne-Ouest (port de Brest) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-55/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark LIEBLINGSWEIN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)
      (Case T-55/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark LIEBLINGSWEIN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 220/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 291/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LIEBLINGSWEIN as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-56/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)
      (Case T-56/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 220/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 501/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WEIN FÜR PROFIS as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-57/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Misleading character — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)
      (Case T-57/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 220/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 502/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WEIN FÜR PROFIS as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-271/19: Action brought on 25 April 2019 — Proodeftiki v Commission

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/39

      Action brought on 25 April 2019 — Proodeftiki v Commission
      (Case T-271/19)
      (2019/C 220/50)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Proodeftiki ATE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Panagopoulou, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision C(2018) 6717 final of the European Commission of 19 October 2018 on the subject of ‘State Aid S.A. 50233 (2018/N) — Greece, State aid for the construction of Lamia-Xiniada section of the E65 Motorway’;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay all the applicant’s legal costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.1 of the contested decision in connection with the affirmation of the criterion of the contribution of the aid under consideration to the attainment of objectives of common interest.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.2 of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation that the criterion of incentive effect for the Concessionaire was met.

                  3.

                  The third plea in law is based on manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case at issue with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 and in section 3.3.1.4 of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation of the criterion of the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality.

                  4.

                  The fourth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 60-64) of the contested decision.

                  5.

                  The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case at issue with respect to the finding of European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 66-69) of the contested decision.

                  6.

                  The sixth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 70-73) of the contested decision.

                  7.

                  The seventh plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 (paragraphs 75-80) of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation of the criterion of the proportionality of the aid at issue.

                  8.

                  The eighth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.5 of the contested decision in connection with the lack of effect on intra-community trade.


title: Case T-273/19: Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/40

      Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)
      (Case T-273/19)
      (2019/C 220/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde, P. Homann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TARGET VENTURES — Application for registration No 13 685 565

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1684/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case T-279/19: Action brought on 27 April 2019 — Front Polisario v Council

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/41

      Action brought on 27 April 2019 — Front Polisario v Council
      (Case T-279/19)
      (2019/C 220/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should

                  —

                  Declare its action admissible;

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2019 L 34, p. 1), the applicant relies on ten pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the power to adopt the contested decision, in that the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lack competence to enter into international agreements that include Western Sahara, instead and in the place of the people of that territory, as represented by the Front Polisario.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the duty to consider all relevant aspects of the case at issue, in that the Council did not take into account the fact that the international agreement, entered into by means of the contested decision, applies on a provisional basis, for a period of 12 years, to the territory of Western Sahara, in breach of its separate and distinct status.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the duty to examine the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law, in that, when it adopted the contested decision, the Council did not consider the question of respect for human rights in occupied Sahrawi territory.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence, in that the Council did not initiate any discussion with the Front Polisario, sole representative of the people of Western Sahara, before the adoption of the contested decision.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the core principles and values guiding the European Union’s action on the international stage. The applicant takes the view that the international agreement, entered into by means of the contested decision, applies to the territory of Western Sahara, in the context of the Kingdom of Morocco’s policy of annexation and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights required for the maintenance of that policy.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to self-determination, in that the international agreement, entered into by means of the contested decision, applies to the territory of Western Sahara, in breach of, first, the separate and distinct status of that territory and, second, the Sahrawi people’s right to respect for the territorial integrity of their territory.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the relative effects of treaties, since the people of Western Sahara, as represented by the Front Polisario, did not consent to the international agreement, entered into by means of the contested decision.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Western Sahara’s airspace, in that the contested decision, by ratifying the illegal practice stemming from the provisional application of the international agreement entered into by means of that decision, results in the inclusion of Sahrawi airspace within the scope of application of that agreement.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the law of international responsibility, in that, by the contested decision, the European Union fails to fulfil, first, its duty not to recognise the illegal occupation of Western Sahara and, second, renders aid and assistance to the maintenance of that situation.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to ensure compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in that compliance by the European Union with its international obligations towards the people of Western Sahara entails, as a minimum, that the Council should refrain from adopting the contested decision, inasmuch as it allows the entry into force of an international agreement applicable to the part of Western Sahara which is under Moroccan occupation.


title: Case T-298/19: Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Shape of red shoelace aglets)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/44

      Action brought on 13 May 2019 — Think Schuhwerk v EUIPO (Shape of red shoelace aglets)
      (Case T-298/19)
      (2019/C 220/54)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Shape of red shoelace aglets) — Application for registration No 15 152 606

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2019 in Case R 1170/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

                  —

                  Infringement of the right to a fair hearing.


title: Case T-529/17: Action brought on 10 August 2017 — Blasi Gómez and Others v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/21

         Action brought on 10 August 2017 — Blasi Gómez and Others v SRB
   (Case T-529/17)
   (2017/C 369/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Carlos Blasi Gómez (Tarragona, Spain), María Dolores Cruells Torelló (Sabadell, Spain), Asociación Independiente de Afectados por el Popular (AIAP) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Pineda Cuadrado, lawyer)

      Defendant: 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;

               —

               In the alternative, in the event that the above head of claim is not upheld, annul in part the decision, with respect to the valuation of the institution, the Court having to carry out, or order the carrying out of, a fair, actual and equitable valuation of the Banco Popular Español which implies the compensation of all its shareholders and creditors in accordance with the new valuation;

               —

               In the further alternative, in the event that the neither of the previous heads of claim is upheld, annul in part the decision, with respect to the valuation of the institution, the Court having to carry out, or order the carrying out of, a fair, actual and equitable valuation of the Banco Popular Español which implies the compensation of the applicants, as shareholders and creditors of that institution in accordance with the new valuation;

               —

               Expressly order the Institution whose act is contested to pay the costs incurred.

      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: Opinion 1/17: Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/2

         Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 1/17)
   (2017/C 369/02)
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, agents, Agents)

      Question submitted to the Court

   Is Chapter Eight (‘Investments’), Section F (‘Resolution of investment disputes between investors and states’) of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016, compatible with the Treaties, including with fundamental rights?


title: Case T-530/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — López Campo and Others v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/21

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — López Campo and Others v SRB
   (Case T-530/17)
   (2017/C 369/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Mario López Campo (Pontevedra, Spain) and eight other applicants (represented by: F. Cabadas García, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRD/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, which it adopted on 7 June 2017, putting the institution Banco Popular Español S.A. under resolution as of 7 June 2017 and declare that the Board is responsible for compensating the applicants in the amounts set out in the application;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Decision SRD/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, which it adopted on 7 June 2017, putting the institution Banco Popular Español S.A. under resolution as of 7 June 2017 and declare that the Board is responsible for compensating the applicants in the amounts resulting from the multiplication of the number of their shares by the final listing price prior to Decision SRD/EES/2017/08.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.
   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-734/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Commission v FE (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Open competition — Inclusion on the reserve list — Decision of the appointing authority not to recruit a successful candidate — Respective powers of the selection board and of the appointing authority — Conditions of admission to the competition — Minimum duration of professional experience — Rules for calculation — Loss of a chance of recruitment — Claim for damages)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Commission v FE
   (Case T-734/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Open competition - Inclusion on the reserve list - Decision of the appointing authority not to recruit a successful candidate - Respective powers of the selection board and of the appointing authority - Conditions of admission to the competition - Minimum duration of professional experience - Rules for calculation - Loss of a chance of recruitment - Claim for damages))
   (2017/C 369/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: FE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2015, FE v Commission (F-119/14, EU:F:2015:116), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside points 1, 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2015, FE v Commission (F-119/14);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by FE before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-119/14;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders FE to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, including the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case T-449/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Bester Opa — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)
   (Case T-449/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Bester Opa - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 92/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Bester Opa as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-552/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Maña and Others v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/29

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Maña and Others v SRB
   (Case T-552/17)
   (2017/C 369/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Maña, S.L. (Teo, Spain) and 113 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Take note of the annulment proceedings against the ‘Decision of the Single Resolution Board made at the Executive Session on 7 June 2017 relating to the resolution plan of Banco Popular Español, S.A., legal person identification No 80H66LPTVDLM0P28XF25, addressed to the FROB (SRB/EES/2017/08)’;

               —

               Annul the contested Decision;

               —

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

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-531/17: Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Promociones Santa Rosa v SRB

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/22

         Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Promociones Santa Rosa v SRB
   (Case T-531/17)
   (2017/C 369/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Promociones Santa Rosa, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Carrión Matamoros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June (non-confidential version) of the Executive Committee of the Single Resolution Board adopting the resolution scheme of the Banco Popular Español, S.A., on the basis of infringement of Articles 7, 18(1) and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as the artificial alteration of the immediate causes which resulted in the institution’s resolution.

      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-450/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Freunde — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)
   (Case T-450/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beste Freunde - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 93/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freunde as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-560/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/30

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-560/17)
   (2017/C 369/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul letter (d) in Annex III, Part I, to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1); and

               —

               award the applicant the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of legitimate expectations by depriving the mercury cell production site operators of their possibility to receive an extension for complying with the best available techniques if the conditions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) are met.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality by (i) setting a firm phase-out deadline for mercury cell production well ahead of the deadline ensuing from the applicable international regulation on mercury, without at least providing the possibility of granting extensions/exemptions in specific cases, (ii) promoting legislation which is unable to provide any significant environmental benefits to a wider public but at the same time causing significant disadvantages to the business operators, and (iii) ignoring existing legislation already providing clear rules for phase-out and extensions/exemptions and failing to provide hardship clauses on its own.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it will cause losses for the applicant’s business operations tantamount to a breach of the fundamental right to property under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, being disproportionate to the objectives of the contested provision and capable of being achieved by less restrictive measures.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017, L 137, p. 1)


title: Case C-447/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/3

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union
   (Case C-447/17 P)
   (2017/C 369/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Guardian Europe Sàrl; European Union, represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph (1) of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Dismiss as unfounded Guardian Europe’s claim, made at first instance, seeking to obtain a sum of EUR 936 000 in respect of bank guarantee costs in compensation for damage that it allegedly suffered because of an infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-82/08; or, and purely in the alternative, reduce that compensation to an amount of EUR 299 251,64, together with compensatory interest calculated having regard to the fact that that amount is composed of different amounts that became due at different points in time;

               —

               Order Guardian Europe to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises four grounds.

               1)

               The first ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the rules applicable as regards limitation where there is a continuous loss, in that the General Court considered that alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs that materialised more than five years before the action for damages was lodged was not time-barred.

               2)

               The second ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of a causal link, in that the General Court held that the infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs, whereas, under a settled line of case-law, an undertaking’s own decision not to pay a fine during proceedings before the European Union courts constitutes the determining cause of the payment of such costs.

               3)

               The third ground alleges that there was an error of law in the determination of the period during which the alleged material damage occurred and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court held, without setting out the reasons, that the period during which the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs occurred could be different from the period during which it had situated the existence of the unlawful conduct that allegedly caused that damage.

               4)

               The fourth ground alleges that there was an error of law due to overcompensation in the award of compensatory interest, in that the General Court awarded the applicant compensatory interest on an amount from a date on which that amount was not yet owed by it.


title: Case T-539/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017– EIB v Syria

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/23

         Action brought on 11 August 2017– EIB v Syria
   (Case T-539/17)
   (2017/C 369/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

      Form of order sought

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

               —

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

                           —

                           404 792,06 euro, 954 331,07 pounds sterling (GBP), 29 130 433,00 Japanese yen (JPY) and 1 498 184,58 American dollar (USD), the amount due to the EU as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, until payment is made;

                           —

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

               —

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

                           —

                           404 792,06 euro, 954 331,07 GBP, 29 130 433,00 JPY and 1 498 184,58 USD, the amount due to the Bank as at 9 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 9 August 2017);

                           —

                           further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, until payment is made;

                           —

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

               —

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

                           —

                           all principal and interest for each instalment;

                           —

                           contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate specified in Article 3.02, from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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


title: Case T-452/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Beste Freundin — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)
   (Case T-452/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beste Freundin - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 369/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 96/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freundin as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-276/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Boswelan — Declaration of revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use)

text:
               30.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 369/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)
   (Case T-276/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Boswelan - Declaration of revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use))
   (2017/C 369/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Hollnseth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 (Case R 2837/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Hecht-Pharma and Viridis Pharmaceutical.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.