27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2016 — H. v Land Berlin

(Case C-174/16)

(2016/C 232/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.

Defendant: Land Berlin

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (1) and the provisions of the Framework Agreement on parental leave published in the annex to that directive to be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which the probationary period, during which an executive post has been assigned to a person with the status of a civil servant on probation, ends by operation of law and with no possibility of extension even in the case where the male or female civil servant has been and still is on parental leave for most of that probationary period?

Are the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (2), in particular Article 14(1)(a) or (c), Article 15 or Article 16 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that rules of national law with the content referred to in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in the case where a very much higher number of women than men is affected, or may potentially be affected, by those rules?

If the answers to Questions 1 or 2 are in the affirmative, does the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of EU law preclude such rules of national law even in the case where the latter are justified by the objective of being able to assess, during the probationary period, the probation for an executive post to be assigned permanently only if the duties are actually performed continuously over a lengthy period?

If the answer to Question 3 is also in the affirmative, does the interpretation of European law allow a legal consequence other than continuation of the probationary period immediately following the end of the parental leave — for the duration of the period not yet elapsed at the beginning of the parental leave — for the same or a comparable official position, in the case where, for example, such a position or an equivalent established post is no longer available?

5.	Does the interpretation of European law require, in this case, for the purpose of filling another official position or another executive post, that a new selection procedure including other candidates in accordance with the provisions of national law should not be held?

(1) OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13.

(2) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Association Mantovani SpA and Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

(Case C-178/16)

(2016/C 232/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Association Mantovani SpA and Guerrato SpA

Respondents: Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)

Question referred

Is it contrary to the correct application of Article 45(2)(c) and (g), and Article 45(3)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts … and of the EU law principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, equal treatment, proportionality and transparency, of the prohibition of making the procedure more cumbersome, and of the greatest openness of the public procurement market, and the principle of legality and precision of criminal penalties too for national legislation such as Article 38(1)(c) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006 (Code on public works contracts, public service contracts and public supply contracts implementing Directives 2004/17/EC (2) and 2004/18/EC) and subsequent amendments, to extend the legal obligation to make a declaration regarding the absence of convictions by way of final judgment (including judgments regarding a sentence negotiated between the parties delivered at their request), for the crimes set out in that legislation, to office-holders in the tendering undertakings, whose tenure ceased in the year preceding the publication of the tender notice, which amounts to a corresponding ground for exclusion from the call for tender, if the undertaking does not show that there has been complete and genuine dissociation from the conduct which carries criminal sanctions, referring to the discretion of the contracting authority the assessment of whether the dissociation is complete, which allows the contracting authority to introduce effectively the following obligations, for failure to fulfil which the tenderer will be excluded:

(i)	obligations to provide information and make declarations relating to criminal activities not yet settled by a final judgment (and, therefore, by definition with an uncertain outcome), not laid down in the Legislative Decree, even in respect of office holders;

(ii)	obligations of voluntary dissociation, without describing the kind of conduct which would be exculpatory, the relative timing (including whether it must occur before the criminal conviction becomes final) and the stage of the procedure at which those obligations must be met;

(iii)

obligations of sincere cooperation, not clearly defined, except with reference to the general clause of good faith.

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

(2) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/5

Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-204/16 P)

(2016/C 232/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

—	set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-141/14;

—	rule on the substance and annul Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and

—	order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of antidumping measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious dumping, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 3.

The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

OJ L 325, p. 1

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/6

Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-205/16 P)

(2016/C 232/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

—	set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-142/14;

—	rule on the substance and annul Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and

—	order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 2 of Regulation 1239/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of countervailing measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious subsidisation, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 2.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

OJ L 325, p. 66

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami

(Case C-225/16)

(2016/C 232/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

Mossa Ouhrami

Questions referred

Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the period of five years mentioned therein is calculated:

a.	from the moment at which the entry ban (or, with retroactive effect, the equivalent declaration of undesirability) was issued, or

b.	with effect from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of — essentially — the Member States of the European Union, or

c.	from some other point in time?

Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive, having regard to the application of transitional law, be interpreted as meaning that decisions taken before that directive entered into force, the legal effect of which is that the addressee must remain outside the Netherlands for ten consecutive years, while the entry ban was determined having regard for all the relevant circumstances of the individual case and was open to challenge on legal grounds, no longer have any legal effect if the duration of that obligation, at the time by which that directive had to be implemented or at the time at which it was established that the person to whom that decision was addressed was present in the Netherlands, exceeded the period provided for in that provision?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/7

Appeal brought on 20 April 2016 by Simet SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2016 in Case T-15/14 Simet v Commission

(Case C-232/16 P)

(2016/C 232/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: C. Clarizia, C. Varrone, P. Clarizia, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment under appeal (Case T-15/14), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/201/EU of 2 October 2013 on compensation to be paid to SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) — Italy) and annul that decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes:

—

Article 107 TFEU, in so far as it held that the compensation payments to SIMET granted by virtue of a ruling of the Italian Consiglio di Stato and notified by the national authorities constituted State aid, while the dispute decided by the national court concerned compensation for damage suffered by the appellant on account of unlawful aspects of acts of the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) in connection with the provision of inter-regional road transport public service during the period between 1987 and 2003;

—

Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (1), in so far as the General Court failed to acknowledge that the relevant Italian legislation did not comply with that regulation on two grounds: (1) it required an individual to carry out his economic activity as a public service only, while, in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, that manner of performing an undertaking’s activity is prohibited in so far as public service requires a concession-holder to comply with public service obligations; (2) it did not provide for compensation for service obligations performed by the undertaking; following the changes introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 (2), Simet could no longer be subject to any public service obligation since it was an inter-regional bus passenger transport undertaking;

—

Regulation No 1191/69, in particular in so far as the General Court erred in considering that the Commission's decision that payments to Simet constituted State Aid was lawful because, since the company had not used separate accounts for costs incurred in respect of that activity, there was a risk of overcompensation. Contrary to the view of the General Court, Article 5 et seq. of the regulation laid down a different method of determining compensatory measures based on the ‘effects’ that the imposition of such public service obligations might have on the loss of competitiveness of the undertaking as a whole;

—

the principles concerning compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringement of EU law, principles according to which if an authority of a Member State adopts an administrative measure within its competence which is contrary to EU law, that authority is required to pay damages to the addressee of that measure, on account of the fact that it is unlawful.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, p. 276).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1).

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/9

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de)

(Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de - Earlier national figurative mark mobile - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 232/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January (Case R 922/2013-1) and 13 February 2014 (Case R 951/2013-1) relating to two cancellation proceedings between mobile.international GmbH and Rezon OOD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions;

2.	Orders mobile.international GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/9

Judgment of the General Court 12 May 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-384/14) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Cattle and sheep sectors - Flat-rate financial correction - One-off correction - Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Special entitlements - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 232/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and B. Tidore, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/191/EU of 4 April 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 104, p. 43), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/10

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case T-468/14) (1)

((Financial support - Research - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development 2007-2013 - eDIGIREGION project - Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Non-material damage - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 232/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented initially by R. Muñiz García, and subsequently by J. Marín López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014 rejecting the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project under Article 263 TFEU, and, second, an action for damages, under Article 268 TFEU, for harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision of EUR 3 055 000 plus interest accrued and, in the alternative, the appointment of an expert to evaluate the harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Holistic Innovation Institute SLU to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/11

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Zuffa v EUIPO (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)

(Case T-590/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character acquired through use - Obligation to state reasons - Relevant public - Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1425/2013-2), regarding an application for registration of the sign ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1425/2013-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal of Zuffa, LLC as regards the following goods and services:

—

‘pre-recorded audio cassettes; phonograph records; compact discs; pre-recorded video cassettes; laser video discs; digital video discs; digital versatile discs; electronic storage media; USB flashdrives; CD-ROM discs all featuring mixed martial arts competitions, events and programs; motion picture films in the field of mixed martial arts’ in Class 9;

—	‘provision of information relating to mixed martial arts via communication and computer networks; providing news and information in the fields of sports, fitness and mixed martial arts via communication and computer networks’ in Class 41;

2.	Dismisses the present action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Zuffa, LLC and EUIPO to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/12

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-643/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 232/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2014 (Case R 1899/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/12

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission

(Case T-669/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Action for damages - Default interest - Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence - Lack of legal basis - Article 266 TFEU - Causal link))

(2016/C 232/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, L. Parpala and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 3 July 2014 in case COMP/38.354 (Industrial bags — Trioplast Industrier AB) and, secondly, for damages under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/13

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission

(Case T-693/14) (1)

((State aid - Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations - Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest - No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure))

(2016/C 232/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Hamr — Sport a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Capoušek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 3602 final of 11 June 2014 relating to State aid SA.33575 (2013/NN) — Czech Republic in favour of non-profit sports facilities granted by central public institutions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Hamr — Sport a.s. to pay the costs, except those incurred by the Czech Republic.

3.	The Czech Republic must be ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/14

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA)

(Case T-749/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH, formerly BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosh, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Peter Chung-Yuan Chang and BSH Hausgeräte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4);

2.	Orders EUIPO and BSH Hausgeräte GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Peter Chung-Yuan Chang.

(1) OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/14

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)

(Case T-750/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ELGO - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Successive restrictions on the application for registration - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95))

(2016/C 232/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ivo-Kermartin GmbH (Walzenhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2014 (Case R 473/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG and Ivo-Kermartin GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ivo-Kermartin GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/15

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

(Case T-775/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 232/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2060/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/16

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2)

(Case T-776/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 - Earlier EU word mark TRONIC - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 232/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 2078/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/16

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)

(Case T-844/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 (Case R 648/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/17

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)

(Case T-32/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2014 (Case R 647/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/18

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-62/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON - Earlier EU figurative mark mito - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2014 (Case R 508/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA, and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/18

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA)

(Case T-298/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 2352/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFEKT PERLENIA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/19

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-312/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON - Earlier national word mark MIVACRON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2015 (Case R 507/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/20

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission

(Case T-496/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Rights of the defence - Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 232/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CX (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015, CX v Commission (F-27/13, EU:F:2015:60), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders CX to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/20

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission

(Case T-635/11) (1)

((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 232/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (Maroussi Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, D. Triantafyllou and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE.

3.	Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/21

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Elliniko Kazino Parnithas v Commission

(Case T-14/12) (1)

((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 232/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE.

3.	Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/22

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission

(Case T-36/12) (1)

((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 232/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and P. J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon

3.	Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/22

Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

(Case T-173/16)

(2016/C 232/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Wöhlke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer).

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Danielle Roches SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALIQUA’ – Application for registration No 12 079 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2016 in Case R 905/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	revoke the contested decision.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 65(2) in connection with Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/23

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)

(Case T-184/16)

(2016/C 232/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NRJ Group (Boileau, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SKY ENERGY’ – Application for registration No 9 727 322

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3137/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Confirm the contested decision insofar as it allows the opposition in respect of the following goods and services:

Class 9: Recorded radio programmes; recorded programmes for broadcasting or other transmission on radio;

Class 38: Radio broadcasting; transmission and communication services, broadcasting and/or transmission of radio programmes; satellite; DTT, cable, DSL and broadband broadcasting and/or transmission of audio programming; transmission of audio, programming (by any means); provision of access to news, current affairs and sports information; telecommunication of information (including web pages); telecommunication and/or communication and/or broadcast and/or transmission of radio programmes;

Class 41: Entertainment services by means of radio, presentation and distribution of radio programmes, provision of news, current affairs and sports information, news, current affairs and educational information services; distribution of radio programmes, provision of radio prorammes;

—	annul the contested decision in all its other provisions;

—	allow the opposition and reject the contested EU mark application for all the goods and services;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/24

Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)

(Case T-189/16)

(2016/C 232/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Torino, Italy)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CReMESPRESSO’ – EU trade mark No 8 919 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2823/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision as far as it allows the CTM proprietor’s appeal and annuls the decision of the EUIPO of 24 October 2014 in part, namely for ‘ice cream makers, ice cream machines, and coffee machines’ in Class 11, and ‘electric ice crushers’ in Class 7;

—	order the Respondent and Intervener to pay the costs of this Appeal.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of CTMR.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/25

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council

(Case T-192/16)

(2016/C 232/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NF (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;

—	order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).

Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/26

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council

(Case T-193/16)

(2016/C 232/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NG (Levbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;

—	order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/26

Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T-199/16)

(2016/C 232/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.

3.	Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/27

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission

(Case T-201/16)

(2016/C 232/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Soudal NV (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	declare the application for annulment admissible;

—	annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess-profit-exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium, as notified to the applicant by the Belgian State on 23 February 2016;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1), Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission incorrectly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure.

—

The Commission infringes Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 107(1) TFEU since it incorrectly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure. The contested aid cannot be allocated on the sole basis of Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 (Belgian Income Tax Code of 1992), but requires additional implementing measures in order for that provision to be applied.

—

The Commission infringes Article 296 TFEU in that its reasoning is contradictory. The contradiction lies in the fact that the Commission does not explain why, when assessing the criterion of selectivity, it takes the view that the previous decisions do not stem directly from Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van inkomstenbelastingen van 1992, whereas it assumes, in assessing the existence of an aid measure, that the provision referred to does not require any additional implementing measures.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage and did not apply the private-investor principle.

—

The Commission failed to investigate whether the contested aid measure actually led to the conferral of an advantage, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, on the recipient undertakings. This was in spite of the fact that that condition is a prerequisite for State aid, and that the Commission is thus required to examine it before deciding on whether State aid exists, failing which it will be in breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

—

The Belgian State, in attributing the contested ruling to the applicant, conducted itself purely as an economic operator in the market economy. The Belgian State thereby invested a sum of money in the applicant, in the form of the grant of tax relief, from which, on the basis of the conditions imposed on the applicant, it could expect to be able to make significant economic returns. Given that the private-investor test is not an exception to be applied by the Commission solely at the request of the Member State in question, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU and breached its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in failing to investigate whether or not the private-investor test was satisfied.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature.

—

Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation which conduct the economic transactions that are the object of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined according to particular features, and is thus not selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is a key component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system leading to selectivity.

—

The Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Ruling Committee) in the context of applying Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the necessary coherence.

4.	Fourth plea in law, based on the contention that the obligation to recover infringes the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/29

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission

(Case T-203/16)

(2016/C 232/37)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark [Danish Regulating Power Association (BRD)] (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power.

—	Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU by having initiated the formal State aid procedure only 29 months after the applicant’s complaint and by having failed to deliver a decision in the case even some 31 months after initiating that procedure.

The applicant further submits that the Commission has received all information that could possibly be necessary to complete the State aid procedure and that a period of 31 months must be deemed to be abundantly sufficient in which to cover the factual and relevant aspects of the case, not least since, prior to the aforementioned 29 months spent on the preliminary examination procedure, the Commission had a total of five years to investigate the case.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/30

Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Sun Media v EUIPO – Meta4 Spain (METABOX)

(Case T-204/16)

(2016/C 232/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METABOX’ – Application for registration No 11 819 125

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 307/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Articles 75 et sqq of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of the EUIPO’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/30

Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Apax Partners UK v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)

(Case T-209/16)

(2016/C 232/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Apax Partners UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APAX PARTNERS’ – EU trade mark No 1 805 282

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 in Case R 1611/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in its entirety and order the registration to be reinstated in its entirety by the EUIPO;

—	order the EUIPO and any party involved in these proceedings before the Board to pay the costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal before the Board and the Cancellation n. 779 C before the Cancellation Division.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/31

Action brought on 3 May 2014 — SATA v EUIPO (4600)

(Case T-214/16)

(2016/C 232/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SATA GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark ‘4600’ — Application No 13 965 595

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1942/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the rejection of EU trade mark No 13965595;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of the general legal principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/32

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)

(Case T-218/16)

(2016/C 232/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mühlbauer Technology GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Magicrown’ — Application No 13 627 641

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1213/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/32

Action brought on 9 March 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO (VISAGE)

(Case T-219/16)

(2016/C 232/42)

Language of the case: German

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 (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VISAGE’ — Application for registration No 13 502 364

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 in Case R 507/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/33

Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-220/16)

(2016/C 232/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRO PLAYER’ – Application for registration No 13 258 595

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1091/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/34

Action brought on 10 March 2016 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)

(Case T-224/16)

(2016/C 232/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH (Friedrichshafen, Germany) (represented by: W. Schulte Hemming, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black, yellow and orange containing the word element ‘Out Door’ — Application for registration No 6 938 864

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 2302/2011-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the registration of the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45;

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of the following goods and services in class 35:

‘arranging and conducting of congresses, conferences, seminars and workshops, trade fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes, including on the Internet and other electronic media; organisation of participation in exhibitions; sales promotion and brokering of trade, service and business contacts and commercial transactions for consumer goods and industrial products on the Internet and other electronic media, including by means of a virtual trade fair; providing and rental of floor space and exhibition stands, including associated equipment (included in this class); advertising for exhibitors; decoration of exhibition stands and platforms’;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/35

Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)

(Case T-225/16)

(2016/C 232/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before the EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ganz schön ausgeschlafen’ — Application for registration No 13 610 316

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 1234/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

27.6.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/35

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)

(Case T-226/16)

(2016/C 232/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ipuri GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘IPURI’ — Application for registration No 8 971 021

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2016 in Case R 886/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 15 in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 8(2)(a) when applying Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 232

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 59 27 June 2016

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2016/C 232/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2016/C 232/02	Case C-95/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA	2
2016/C 232/03	Case C-166/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2016 — Tui Deutschland GmbH v Stefan Düren	2
2016/C 232/04	Case C-174/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2016 — H. v Land Berlin	3
2016/C 232/05	Case C-178/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2016 — Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. E. Association Mantovani SpA and Guerrato SpA v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Agenzia per i procedimenti e la vigilanza in materia di contratti pubblici di lavori servizi e forniture (ACP), Autorità nazionale anticorruzione (ANAC)	4
2016/C 232/06	Case C-204/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union	5
2016/C 232/07	Case C-205/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-142/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union	6
2016/C 232/08	Case C-225/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami	7
2016/C 232/09	Case C-232/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2016 by Simet SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2016 in Case T-15/14 Simet v Commission	7
	General Court
2016/C 232/10	Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon (mobile.de) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word and figurative trade marks mobile.de — Earlier national figurative mark mobile — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1), Article 57(2) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)	9
2016/C 232/11	Case T-384/14: Judgment of the General Court 12 May 2016 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Cattle and sheep sectors — Flat-rate financial correction — One-off correction — Articles 48 and 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Special entitlements — Obligation to state reasons)	9
2016/C 232/12	Case T-468/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission (Financial support — Research — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development 2007-2013 — eDIGIREGION project — Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking — Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)	10
2016/C 232/13	Case T-590/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Zuffa v EUIPO (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Distinctive character acquired through use — Obligation to state reasons — Relevant public — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	11
2016/C 232/14	Case T-643/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)	12
2016/C 232/15	Case T-669/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Action for damages — Default interest — Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence — Lack of legal basis — Article 266 TFEU — Causal link)	12
2016/C 232/16	Case T-693/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Hamr — Sport v Commission (State aid — Sports facilities provided by non-profit organisations — Operating or investment subsidies seeking to enable the construction, operation, maintenance, reconstruction or development of sports facilities which are non-profit — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Notion of interested party — Admissibility — No effect on the trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest — No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure)	13
2016/C 232/17	Case T-749/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark AROMA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	14
2016/C 232/18	Case T-750/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ELGO — Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Successive restrictions on the application for registration — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95)	14
2016/C 232/19	Case T-775/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)	15
2016/C 232/20	Case T-776/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONICX2) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ABTRONICX2 — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)	16
2016/C 232/21	Case T-844/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	16
2016/C 232/22	Case T-32/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	17
2016/C 232/23	Case T-62/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON — Earlier EU figurative mark mito — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)	18
2016/C 232/24	Case T-298/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	18
2016/C 232/25	Case T-312/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — Glaxo Group (MITOCHRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON — Earlier national word mark MIVACRON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)	19
2016/C 232/26	Case T-496/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CX v Commission (Appeal — Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Rights of the defence — Articles 4 and 6 of the Staff Regulations — Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Principle of proportionality — Manifest error of assessment)	20
2016/C 232/27	Case T-635/11: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)	20
2016/C 232/28	Case T-14/12: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Elliniko Kazino Parnithas v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)	21
2016/C 232/29	Case T-36/12: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)	22
2016/C 232/30	Case T-173/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)	22
2016/C 232/31	Case T-184/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)	23
2016/C 232/32	Case T-189/16: Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)	24
2016/C 232/33	Case T-192/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council	25
2016/C 232/34	Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council	26
2016/C 232/35	Case T-199/16: Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission	26
2016/C 232/36	Case T-201/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission	27
2016/C 232/37	Case T-203/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission	29
2016/C 232/38	Case T-204/16: Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Sun Media v EUIPO – Meta4 Spain (METABOX)	30
2016/C 232/39	Case T-209/16: Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Apax Partners UK v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)	30
2016/C 232/40	Case T-214/16: Action brought on 3 May 2014 — SATA v EUIPO (4600)	31
2016/C 232/41	Case T-218/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)	32
2016/C 232/42	Case T-219/16: Action brought on 9 March 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO (VISAGE)	32
2016/C 232/43	Case T-220/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 – Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO (PRO PLAYER)	33
2016/C 232/44	Case T-224/16: Action brought on 10 March 2016 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)	34
2016/C 232/45	Case T-225/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — Matratzen Concord v EUIPO (Ganz schön ausgeschlafen)	35
2016/C 232/46	Case T-226/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)	35
	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2016/C 232/47	Case F-51/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2016 — FR v EASA	37