Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2017/C 412/01)

Last publication

OJ C 402, 27.11.2017

Past publications

OJ C 392, 20.11.2017

OJ C 382, 13.11.2017

OJ C 374, 6.11.2017

OJ C 369, 30.10.2017

OJ C 357, 23.10.2017

OJ C 347, 16.10.2017

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Appointment of the First Advocate General

(2017/C 412/02)

At its Meeting on 26 September 2017, the Court of Justice appointed Mr Wathelet as First Advocate General for the period from 7 October 2017 to 6 October 2018.

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2017/C 412/03)

At its General Meeting on 26 September 2017, the Court designated the First Chamber as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2017 to 6 October 2018.

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2017/C 412/04)

At its General Meeting on 26 September 2017, the Court designated the Second Chamber as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2017 to 6 October 2018.

Decisions adopted by the Court in its General Meeting on 3 October 2017

(2017/C 412/05)

Assignment of Judges to Chambers of three Judges

At its meeting on 3 October 2017, the Court decided to assign Judges to the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Fernlund, President of the Chamber,

Mr Bonichot, Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Rodin and Mr Regan, Judges.

Seventh Chamber

Mr Rosas, President of the Chamber,

Ms Toader, Ms Prechal and Mr Jarašiūnas, Judges.

Eighth Chamber

Mr Malenovský, President of the Chamber,

Mr Safjan, Mr Šváby and Mr Vilaras, Judges.

Ninth Chamber

Mr Vajda, President of the Chamber,

Mr Juhász, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Lycourgos, Judges.

Tenth Chamber

Mr Levits, President of the Chamber,

Mr Borg Barthet, Ms Berger and Mr Biltgen, Judges.

List for determining the composition of the Chambers for cases allocated to a Chamber composed of three Judges

(2017/C 412/06)

At its Meeting on 3 October 2017, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Bonichot

Mr Arabadjiev

Mr Rodin

Mr Regan

Seventh Chamber

Ms Toader

Ms Prechal

Mr Jarašiūnas

Eighth Chamber

Mr Safjan

Mr Šváby

Mr Vilaras

Ninth Chamber

Mr Juhász

Ms Jürimäe

Mr Lycourgos

Tenth Chamber

Mr Borg Barthet

Ms Berger

Mr Biltgen

Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges

(2017/C 412/07)

At a meeting on 26 September 2017, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Fernlund as President of the Sixth Chamber, Mr Rosas as President of the Seventh Chamber, Mr Malenovský as President of the Eighth Chamber, Mr Vajda as President of the Ninth Chamber and Mr Levits as President of the Tenth Chamber for the period from 7 October 2017 to 6 October 2018.

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2017/C 412/08)

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 2 April 2017 to 31 August 2019 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 29 March 2017 (1), Mr Mac Eochaidh took the oath before the Court of Justice on 8 June 2017.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 15 September 2017 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 6 September 2017 (2), Mr De Baere took the oath before the Court of Justice on 4 October 2017.

(1)  OJ L 89, 1.4.2017, p. 9.

(2)  OJ L 236, 14.9.2017, p. 22.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI),

(Case C-413/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Liability for personal injury caused to all passengers other than the driver - Compulsory insurance - Direct effect - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 1(4) - Organisation responsible for paying compensation for damage to property or personal injury caused by an unidentified or uninsured vehicle space - Whether a directive can be relied on against a State - Conditions governing whether a private law body can be deemed to be an emanation of the State and whether provisions of a directive capable of having direct effect can be relied upon against it))

(2017/C 412/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elaine Farrell

Defendants: Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI),

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Cactus SA, Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez

(Case C-501/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’ - Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative EU trade marks containing the word element ‘Cactus’ - Nice Classification - Article 28 - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the mark in an abbreviated form))

(2017/C 412/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Cactus SA (represented by: K. Manhaeve, avocate), Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-661/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 29 - Import of vehicles - Determination of the customs value - Article 78 - Revision of the declaration - Article 236(2) - Repayment of import duties - Period of three years - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 145(2) and (3) - Risk of defects - Period of 12 months - Validity))

(2017/C 412/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

(Case C-156/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Article 1(3) - Community Customs Code - Article 78 - Rule making the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice - Whether a valid commercial invoice may be presented after the customs declaration - Refusal to refund))

(2017/C 412/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tigers GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the presentation, after the customs declaration has been made, of a valid commercial invoice, for the purposes of fixing a definitive anti-dumping duty, in the case where all the other preconditions necessary for obtaining a company-specific anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied and compliance with the proper application of the anti-dumping duties is ensured, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim — Poland) — proceedings brought by Aleksandra Kubicka

(Case C-218/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Succession and the European Certificate of Succession - Scope - Immovable property located in a Member State in which legacies ‘per vindicationem’ do not exist - Refusal to recognise the material effects of such a legacy))

(2017/C 412/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Aleksandra Kubicka

Intervening party: Przemysława Bac, acting in her capacity as notary

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(k) and (l) and Article 31 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as precluding refusal, by an authority of a Member State, to recognise the material effects of a legacy ‘by vindication’, provided for by the law governing succession chosen by the testator in accordance with Article 22(1) of that regulation, where that refusal is based on the ground that the legacy concerns the right of ownership of immovable property located in that Member State, whose law does not provide for legacies with direct material effect when succession takes place.

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Shields & Sons Partnership v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-262/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 296(2) - Article 299 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Exclusion from the common scheme - Conditions - Concept of ‘category of farmers’))

(2017/C 412/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Shields & Sons Partnership

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Sleutjes

(Case C-278/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Article 3(1) - Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings - Translation of ‘essential documents’ - Definition of essential documents - Penalty order issued following a simplified unilateral procedure and imposing on the addressee a fine for a minor offence))

(2017/C 412/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Aachen

Party in the main proceedings

Frank Sleutjes

Intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as an order provided for in national law for imposing sanctions in relation to minor offences and delivered by a judge following a simplified unilateral procedure, constitutes a ‘document which is essential’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive, of which a written translation must, in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in that provision, be provided to suspected or accused persons who do not understand the language of the proceedings in question, for the purposes of enabling them to exercise their rights of defence and thus of safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings.

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-289/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Organic products - Control system established by Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Concept of ‘direct sale to the final consumer or user’))

(2017/C 412/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for products to be regarded as being sold ‘directly’, within the meaning of that provision, to the final consumer or user, it is necessary for the sale to occur in the presence of both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer.

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-404/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Direct effect - Taxable amount - Reduction in the case of cancellation or refusal - Reduction in the case of total or partial non-payment - Distinction - Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of public charges))

(2017/C 412/17)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Hernández Zamora, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-369/15: Hernández Zamora, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-224/17 P)

(2017/C 412/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Hernández Zamora, SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rosen Tantau KG

By order of 19 October 2017 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

Action brought on 5 May 2017 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-235/17)

(2017/C 412/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and L. Havas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that, by disproportionately restricting the usufruct of arable and forest land, the Hungarian legislation at issue is incompatible with Hungary’s obligations under Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The withdrawal of rights of usufruct by way of legislation amounts to a restriction of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular because such removal of the right of usufruct makes it impossible or excessively difficult, for those who have hitherto held such rights, to set up a secondary establishment in Hungary (or to obtain title there enabling them to exploit arable land) for the purpose of carrying out their activities there and so contribute, through economic activity on a self-employed basis, to economic and social interpenetration within the European Union. The Commission considers that the withdrawal of rights of usufruct by way of legislation is liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment.

The Hungarian legislation also infringes the free movement of capital since it has the effect of preventing or limiting investment in immovable property situated in Hungary by those who do not have Hungarian nationality. Such legislation has the effect of reducing the value of existing rights of usufruct, which also constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.

The Hungarian legislation gives rise to indirect discrimination by placing at a disadvantage EU citizens who do not have Hungarian nationality.

That restriction of the abovementioned freedoms is unjustifiable. It cannot be justified by any of the grounds laid down in the Treaty or by the other grounds that the Hungarian Government put forward in the course of the proceedings.

In particular, the Commission cannot accept the Hungarian Government’s submission that the restriction is necessary in order to end an unlawful situation. According to the Commission, it cannot be accepted that there is a general presumption — which is not established in any event — that all usufruct contracts concluded by foreign citizens in respect of arable land in Hungary are, from the time at which they are made, illegal or invalid. Nor can the submission be accepted that the unlawfulness of each and every usufruct contract may be inferred from the absence of authorisation for the currency exchange required by the legislation in force prior to 2002.

The restriction introduced by the Hungarian legislation does not satisfy the requirement of proportionality since it is not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued and, in addition, goes significantly beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.

The Hungarian legislation does not meet the requirements arising from the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and does not guarantee adequate compensation for those who have suffered loss and damage because of the withdrawal or restriction of rights of usufruct.

In the Commission’s view, the Hungarian legislation at issue is contrary to the right to property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter. In certain cases, there is interference with the right to property even when the infringement does not extend to the three constituent elements of ‘property’ (use and enjoyment, possession and disposal).

Appeal brought on 28 June 2017 by Irit Azoulay, Andrew Boreham, Mirja Bouchard and Darren Neville against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2017 in Case T-580/16, Azoulay and Others v European Parliament

(Case C-390/17 P)

(2017/C 412/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Irit Azoulay, Andrew Boreham, Mirja Bouchard and Darren Neville (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by several errors of law and a distortion of the facts.

The General Court erred in law and distorted the facts by rejecting an autonomous and uniform interpretation of the concept of education costs within the EU legal order and by making that concept dependent on the meaning attributed to it in the various education systems of the countries of residence of an official, irrespective of the nature of the costs and the interests of the children.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it follows, both from the uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality, that the terms of a provision of EU law that makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgment of 15 October 2015, Axa Belgium, C–494/14, EU:C:2015:692).

In addition, the General Court’s finding in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal is incoherent and misconstrues the case-law concerning the rule of correspondence between the prior administrative complaint and the action.

The appellants also submit that the General Court did not comply with its obligation to state reasons by failing to rule on the infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which had nonetheless been put forward before it.

Consequently, according to the appellants, by examining their three separate heads of claims in a manner that was overly perfunctory, the General Court arrived at findings that are substantiated neither in law nor in fact.

Appeal brought on 17 July 2017 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 May 2017 in Case T-36/16: Enercon v EUIPO

(Case C-433/17 P)

(2017/C 412/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt, M. Silverleaf QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gamesa Eólica, SL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal in Case T-36/16 infringes Article 7(1)(b) and/or 52(1)(a) of Council regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and that there was a breach of procedure before the General Court on the following grounds:

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 22 August 2017 — HR

(Case C-512/17)

(2017/C 412/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HR

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 September 2017 — Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH

(Case C-531/17)

(2017/C 412/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vetsch Int. Transporte GmbH

Respondent authority: Zollamt Feldkirch Wolfurt

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 September 2017 — NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of OJ B.V. and PI v BNP Paribas Fortis N.V.

(Case C-535/17)

(2017/C 412/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NK, liquidator in the bankruptcies of OJ B.V. and PI

Defendant: BNP Paribas Fortis N.V.

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 September 2017 — DISA Gas SAU v Administración del Estado, Redexis Gas, S.L., Repsol Butano, S.A.

(Case C-546/17)

(2017/C 412/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DISA Gas SAU

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Redexis Gas, S.L., Repsol Butano, S.A.

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Riksåklagaren v Imran Syed

(Case C-572/17)

(2017/C 412/26)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Riksåklagaren

Respondent: Imran Syed

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 28 September 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Popławski

(Case C-573/17)

(2017/C 412/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Daniel Adam Popławski

Questions referred

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2017 — Oy Hartwall Ab

(Case C-578/17)

(2017/C 412/28)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oy Hartwall Ab

Other interested parties: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-580/17)

(2017/C 412/29)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mittetulundusühing Järvelaev

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

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

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

Appeal brought on 5 October 2017 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2017 in Case T-287/16, Belgium v Commission

(Case C-587/17 P)

(2017/C 412/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by E. Grégoire and J. Mariani, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law resulting from a misinterpretation by the General Court of Article 32(8)(a) of Regulation No 1290/2005, (2) now, essentially, Article 54(5)(c) of Regulation No 1306/2013, (3) both with regard to the prior exhaustion of national rights of action and with regard to the due care required by that provision.

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

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

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549; corrigendum OJ 2016 L 130, p. 6).

Action brought on 13 October 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-594/17)

(2017/C 412/31)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, G. von Rintelen and M. Žebre)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 15(1) of Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States, the Republic of Slovenia should have adopted and made public, by 31 December 2013, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive. Since the Republic of Slovenia did not confirm to the Commission, before expiry of that time limit, that all the provisions of the directive cited above had been transposed, the Commission decided to bring an action before the Court.

By its action, the Commission claims that the Court should order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty of EUR 7 099,20 per day. In calculating that amount, the Commission took into consideration the seriousness and the duration of the breach of EU law as well as the deterrent effect in relation to the ability of the Member State concerned, namely the Republic of Slovenia, to pay.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — CEAHR v Commission

(Case T-712/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of a dominant position - Selective repair system - Refusal of Swiss watch manufacturers to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers - Primary market and aftermarket - Elimination of all effective competition - Decision rejecting a complaint))

(2017/C 412/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Confédération européenne des associations d’horlogers-réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Mathijsen and P. Dyrberg, subsequently by M. Sánchez Rydelski and lastly by P. Benczek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Ronkes Agerbeek, M. Farley and C. Urraca Caviedes, and subsequently by A. Dawes, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Froitzheim, lawyer, and R. Subiotto QC), Rolex, SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, lawyer) and The Swatch Group SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented: initially by A. Israel and M. Jakobs, and subsequently by A. Israel and J. Lang, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5462 final of 29 July 2014, by which the Commission rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Case AT.39097 — Watch Repair).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Leopard v EUIPO — Smart Market (LEOPARD true racing)

(Case T-7/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU trade mark LEOPARD true racing - Prior figurative EU trade mark leopard CASA Y JARDIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Leopard SA (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Smart Market, SLU (Alcantarilla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 (Case R 1866/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Smart Market and Leopard.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-502/15) (1)

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Spain - Flat-rate financial corrections - Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Proportionality - Rights of defence))

(2017/C 412/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, and subsequently by M. Sampol Pucurull, A. Gavela Llopis and V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Guillem Carrau and D. Triantafyllou, and subsequently by D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) as regards certain corrections made in respect of Catalonia, on the one hand, and the Canaries, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO — Sky (SKYLITe)

(Case T-736/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark skylite - Earlier EU word mark SKY - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 412/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2015 (Case R 2771/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Aldi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2017 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)

(Case T-202/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark coffee inn - Earlier national figurative mark coffee in - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UAB Keturi kambariai (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Pumputienė, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OÜ Coffee In (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: P. Lätt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 137/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Coffee In and Keturi kambariai.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)

(Case T-404/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a packet of biscuits - Declaration of revocation - Extent of use - No alteration of distinctive character))

(2017/C 412/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rebling, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1613/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)

(Case T-418/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a packet of biscuits - Declaration of revocation - Extent of use - No alteration of distinctive character))

(2017/C 412/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Rebling, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1614/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)

(Case T-441/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark SeboCalm - Earlier EU word mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany) (represented by: J. Wald and D. Koal, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 19 May 2016 (Case R 852/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sebapharma and Tetra Pharm (1997).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

(Case T-649/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Transfer from a head of unit post to an advisor post - Interests of the service - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard and duty of care - Principle of equivalence of posts))

(2017/C 412/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, C. Berardis-Kayser and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 30 November 2015 changing the applicant’s assignment, from 1 December 2015, from the post of Head of the Traineeships Office Unit of the Youth and Sport Directorate within the Education and Culture Directorate General (DG) to the post of Advisor at the Modernisation of Education II: Education policy and programme, Innovation, EIT and MSCA Directorate within that same DG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (MATRIX BODY SHOP)

(Case T-683/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MATRIX BODY SHOP - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kuka Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2016 (Case R 2503/2015-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign MATRIX BODY SHOP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Possanzini v Frontex

(Case T-686/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - 2009 appraisal procedure - Powers of the countersigning officer - Amendment of the reporting officer’s primary assessment by the countersigning officer - Preliminary consultation meeting between the countersigning officer and the reporting officer - Infringement of substantial procedural requirements - Examination of the Court’s own motion))

(2017/C 412/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbrock and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016, Possanzini v Commission (F-68/15, EU:F:2016:150), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 —  WQ (*1) v Parliament

(Case T-705/16) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Certification procedure - 2014 - Not included in the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme - Equal treatment - Article 165 TFEU - Plea of illegality))

(2017/C 412/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WQ (*1) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016,  WQ (*1) v Parliament (F-1/16, EU:F:2016:171), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Barmenia Krankenversicherung v EUIPO (Mediline)

(Case T-810/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU word mark Mediline - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Barmenia Krankenversicherung AG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2016 (Case R 2437/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Mediline as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)

(Case T-87/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Matrix light - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 412/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kuka Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 886/2016-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Matrix light as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2017 — Salehi v Commission

(Case T-773/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act - Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Failure by the Commission to adopt implementing acts temporarily suspending the exemption from visa requirements for certain categories of third country nationals - Position of the Commission - Manifestly inadmissible))

(2017/C 412/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt an implementing act within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) and failed to notify the applicant thereof.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T-580/17)

(2017/C 412/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Poza Poza v SRB

(Case T-597/17)

(2017/C 412/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Máximo Poza Poza (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: P. Poza Cisneros, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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.

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Madrid Diario de la Noche and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-639/17)

(2017/C 412/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Madrid Diario de la Noche (Madrid, Spain) and 24 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

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.

Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Amorepacific v EUIPO — Primavera Life (p primera Pure Sprout Energy)

(Case T-684/17)

(2017/C 412/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Amorepacific Corporation (Seoul, Korea) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and F. Klein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Primavera Life GmbH (Oy-Mittelberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘p primera Pure Sprout Energy’ — Application for registration No 13 151 683

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2017 in Case R 1744/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 6 October 2017 — Hola v SRB

(Case T-688/17)

(2017/C 412/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v SRB.

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Top Cable v SRB

(Case T-689/17)

(2017/C 412/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Top Cable, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v SRB.

Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission

(Case T-696/17)

(2017/C 412/53)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV (Antwerp, Belgium) and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV (Zeebrugge, Belgium) (represented by: P. Wytinck, W. Panis and I. Letten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-699/17)

(2017/C 412/54)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Hermann Biederlack v EUIPO (Feeling home)

(Case T-715/17)

(2017/C 412/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Biederlack GmbH & Co. KG (Greven, Germany) (represented by: T. Seifried, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Feeling home’ — Application for registration No 15 452 931

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 252/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 18 October 2017 — Germanwings v Commission

(Case T-716/17)

(2017/C 412/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (notified under document C(2016) 4862) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 5).

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2017 — Falmouth University v Commission

(Case T-227/17) (1)

(2017/C 412/57)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.