11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/3

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-160/16)

(2016/C 251/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Ζavvos and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Declare that, since the Hellenic Republic has failed to submit a report on cost-optimal levels, as is laid down in Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/ΕU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, as supplemented by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 (2) of 16 January 2012 establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

—	order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 18 March 2016 the European Commission brought an action against the Hellenic Republic which seeks a declaration from the Court of Justice that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to submit a report on cost-optimal levels, as is laid down in Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, as supplemented by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.

By it action the Commission submits that, with respect to its abovementioned claims, the Greek authorities have not yet communicated the final report on cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, using the comparative methodology framework established by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 and that consequently there is an infringement of Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/ΕU.

(1) OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.

(2) OJ 2012 L 81, p. 18.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2016 — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

(Case C-193/16)

(2016/C 251/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant/appellant: E

Defendant/respondent: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

Question referred

In accordance with Article 27 [(1) and (2)] of Directive 2004/38/EC, (1) does the appellant, sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for repeated offences of child abuse, represent a genuine and present threat to public security, bearing in mind that he is detained in prison and, having served six years, has several years left to serve before being released?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

(Case C-196/16)

(2016/C 251/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Corridonia

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

Question referred

On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

(1) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

(Case C-197/16)

(2016/C 251/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Loro Piceno, Marcello Bartolini, Filippo Bruè, Sergio Forti, Stefano Piatti, Gaetano Silvetti, Gianfranco Silvetti, Rocco Tirabasso, Sante Vagni, Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co., Suolificio Elefante Srl, Suolificio Roxy Srl, Aldo Alessandrini

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

Question referred

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-206/16)

(2016/C 251/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Lauro Sessantuno SpA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the second paragraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and the proper application of the general principles of European law relating to legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions authorise Consob to increase the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where the condition that ‘there has been collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers’ is fulfilled, without identifying the specific actions which constitute such a situation, and thus without determining clearly the conditions and criteria under which Consob is authorised to adjust upwards the price of the takeover bid?

(1) Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 april 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-207/16)

(2016/C 251/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta

Party to the main proceedings

Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred

Can the sufficient seriousness of offences, as a criterion which justifies interference with the fundamental rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (1) be determined taking into account only the sentence which may be imposed in respect of the offence investigated, or is it also necessary to identify in the criminal conduct particular levels of harm to individual and/or collective legally-protected interests?

If it were in accordance with the constitutional principles of the European Union, used by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 April 2014 [Joined Cases C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) and C-594/12 (Seitlinger and Others)] as standards for the strict review of the Directive, (2) to determine the seriousness of the offence solely on the basis of the sentence which may be imposed, what should the minimum threshold be? Would it be compatible with a general provision setting a minimum of three years’ imprisonment?

(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, p. 391).

(2) Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2016 — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

(Case C-211/16)

(2016/C 251/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bimotor SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

Question referred

Does the Community legislation on VAT (Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, as amended by Directive 2002/38/EC (2) and Directive 2006/112/EC (3)) preclude legislation of a Member State — such as Article 34(1) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000 — under which VAT claims may be repaid or used to offset tax owed, for a given tax year, not in their entirety but only up to a predetermined maximum limit?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002 amending and amending temporarily Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services (OJ 2002 L 128, p. 41).

(3) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 15 April 2016 — DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH

(Case C-212/16)

(2016/C 251/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG

Defendant: BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH

Joined parties: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft

Questions referred

Is it compatible with ensuring effective judicial protection in accordance with Article 1(3) and Article 2d(1)(a) of Directive 89/665/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) for a person who asserts the ineffectiveness of a contract concluded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union not to be eligible to use the review procedure, despite risk of harm, on the ground that the contracting authority, which, prior to awarding the contract, did not publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and did not follow a proper award procedure, conclusively specifies, by a statement during the review procedure, the service to be provided in such a way that the economic operator bringing proceedings could not provide it?

(a)

Does it constitute a material contractual amendment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgment of 19 June 2008 in Case C-454/06 Pressetext) if a public undertaking hived off from another public undertaking concludes, in the context of transfer of part of a business within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC, (3) with the previous provider of occupational pension services to the hiving-off public undertaking, a new contract for the provision of occupational pensions which, for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the transferred employees to old-age and invalidity benefits under an occupational pension scheme, is in that respect identical with the original contract and the hived-off public undertaking is controlled by the hiving-off public undertaking as sole proprietor?

If Question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative:

(b)

Is the use of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice pursuant to Article 31(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC with only one economic operator (namely, the previous service provider to the hiving-off public undertaking) permissible if the employees of the hiving-off public undertaking become, by way of transfer of a business, employees of the hived-off contracting authority and, in accordance with their contracts of employment transferred unaltered pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC in conjunction with an established in-house practice, would be entitled as against their new employer, under national employment law, to demand that the occupational pension services be provided by the previous service provider with which the prospective entitlements accrued prior to transfer of the business?

If Question (b) must be answered in the negative:

(c)

May a contracting authority which, prior to awarding a contract, did not publish a contact notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and did not follow an award procedure in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC, exercise its right to specify performance — without infringing the procurement-law principles of competition, transparency and equal treatment — before following a proper award procedure, to the effect that, in specifying an implementation method for the occupational pension provision, it also specifies how the future service provider is to finance itself? May a contracting authority thus predetermine that only services of an unfunded pension scheme may be offered and that funded pension schemes are thus excluded, even though their obligations towards the insured employees may not differ pursuant to national employment law and by virtue of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC?

If Question 2(c) must be answered in the affirmative:

(d)

Does this apply before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2014/24/EU even if that would have the effect that only one economic operator (namely, the previous service provider) was in a position to provide the service, or is a contracting authority which intends to use a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice with only one economic operator, pursuant to Article 31(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC, required, when specifying performance, even before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2014/24/EU, to ascertain that no reasonable alternative or substitute exists and that the absence of competition is not the result of an artificial narrowing down of the parameters of the procurement, as laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 32(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU?

(1) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

(2) Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

(3) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

(Case C-223/16)

(2016/C 251/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Question referred

Do Article 47(2) and Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) as replaced by Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU, (2) preclude national rules which exclude, or may be construed as excluding, any possibility for an economic operator, that is to say a tenderer, of appointing another undertaking to replace the undertaking originally relied upon as ‘auxiliary undertaking’ where the latter no longer has the capacity to participate or that capacity is diminished, thus resulting in the economic operator being excluded from the tendering procedure for reasons that are neither objectively nor subjectively imputable to it?

(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 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

(Case C-226/16)

(2016/C 251/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

Questions referred

Must Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 (1) be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of additional obligations resulting from the inclusion among ‘protected customers’, whose consumption contributes to defining the limits of the storage obligations designed to ensure continuity of supply, of customers who are not mentioned in Article 2(1) of that regulation?

Must Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of obligations relating to the volumes of gas stored and the withdrawal rates attached thereto, and to the holding of storage capacities acquired by virtue of rights reflecting the obligation to hold stocks on the territory of that Member State, whilst at the same time providing that the Minister, in assessing a supplier’s storage capacities, is to take account of the other regulatory instruments available to that supplier?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC (OJ 2010 L 295, p. 1).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/11

Appeal brought on 25 April 2016 by Ante Šumelj and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Joined Cases T-546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14 Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission

(Case C-239/16 P)

(2016/C 251/14)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Appellants: Ante Šumelj, Dubravka Bašljan, Đurđica Crnčević, Miroslav Lovreković, Drago Burazer, Nikolina Nežić, Blaženka Bošnjak, Bosiljka Grbašić, Tea Tončić, Milica Bjelić, Marijana Kruhoberec, Davor Škugor, Ivan Gerometa, Kristina Samardžić, Sandra Cindrić, Sunčica Gložinić, Tomislav Polić, Vlatka Pižeta (represented by: M. Krmek, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	Uphold the claims made in the application and in the appeal;

—	Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their analysis of the judgment of the General Court, the appellants rely on various pleas in law:

The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law to their detriment in not declaring that the Commission had failed to meet its obligation to monitor the application of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union as regards the establishment of the profession of public enforcement officer in the legal order of the Republic of Croatia in accordance with Article 36 of the Act of Accession, which expressly states that: ‘The Commission shall closely monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the accession negotiations, including those which must be achieved before or by the date of accession.’ The Commission’s monitoring focused in particular on commitments undertaken by Croatia in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights (Annex VII).

The General Court erred in law in stating, in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal (contrary to what was set out in paragraph 52 thereof), that it could not be inferred from any of the commitments in Annex VII of the Act of Accession relied on by the appellants that the Republic of Croatia was obliged to establish the profession of public enforcement officer, nor could it be inferred, consequently, that the Commission was obliged to use the measures provided for in Article 36 of the Act of Accession for the purpose of preventing the repeal of the Law on public enforcement officers.

The negotiations between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union were lengthy and, by contrast with the other chapters, Chapter 23 was the last and most difficult and, in accordance with the good practices of the European Union, dealt with the political criteria on which the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union was made conditional. The negotiations were concluded on 30 June 2011, after the Croatian Government submitted to the Presidency of the European Union, on 12 May 2011, a report on the fulfilment of the commitments in Chapter 23. In that report, the Republic of Croatia undertook 10 specific commitments in relation to the Treaty of Accession (Article 36 of the Act of Accession) and undertook to fulfil them. Commitment No 1 and Commitment No 3 (relating to the introduction of public enforcement officers), to the provisions of which the appellants refer in the proceedings, expressly oblige the Republic of Croatia to introduce public enforcement officers.

Furthermore, the General Court erred in law (in breach of the principle of legal certainty) in stating, in paragraphs 47 to 51 of the judgment under appeal, that Commitment No 1 did not refer to a specific judicial reform strategy and action plan in force in the period between the finalisation of the negotiations and the repeal of the laws that had regulated the profession of public enforcement officer. The appellants claim that to refer to another judicial reform strategy to which the Commission had referred subsequently in its documents and not to the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011 and the Action Plan 2011, which obliged the Republic of Croatia to introduce the role of public enforcement officer, would create a dangerous precedent contrary to a considered legal interpretation.

The General Court also erred in law in stating, in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants had not referred to any specific infringement, other than breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the appellants refer, as regards infringements, to discrimination, infringement of the right to work and breach of legal certainty throughout the proceedings. It is simply incredible that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court completely ignored the principle of legal certainty (it makes no reference thereto), which principle, according to settled case-law, gives rise to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The General Court erred in law in considering Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union to be irrelevant to these proceedings. However, that the proceedings were unlawful does not exclusively mean that positive rules of the European Union have been infringed, that is to say, written rules, but may also presuppose the breach of general principles of law (principle of certainty) and the infringement of Article 13 TEU. The European Union has an institutional framework that aims to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions. The general principles of law form part of the legal order of the European Union.

The General Court erred in law when, contrary to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, it did not find that the appellants had been nominated, that is to say, appointed to occupy posts of public enforcement officers at the time Chapter 23 was closed, namely, when the reform of the judiciary, of which public enforcement officers form part, was agreed. Indeed, once the accession negotiations between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union were concluded, in particular, with the adoption of specific measures, and taking into consideration Article 26 of the Vienna Convention, the appellants had legal certainty that they would exercise their chosen profession.

The General Court erred in law in not concluding, having regard to the mandatory provisions of Article 36 of the Act of Accession, that the Commission had to ensure its application and adopt all the measures necessary so that the Republic of Croatia fulfilled its commitments. Given that the Commission did not act in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, this entails an infringement of that same article, which adversely affects the appellants.

The General Court erred in law in not considering the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union to be the result of the negotiations and as such to impose obligations and produce legal effects under the rules and legal order of the European Union. In the present case, the Treaty of Accession guarantees the appellants the right to work and the establishment of a new profession for which they have been chosen. Under the provisions of the Treaty, the appellants expected, with good reason, to begin carrying out the tasks for which they had been appointed, since they had previously satisfied all the conditions required (passed the exams, left their previous jobs and equipped their offices) in accordance with the Law.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/13

Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Vedran Vidmar and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission

(Case C-240/16 P)

(2016/C 251/15)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—

Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14, uphold the claims made by the appellants in their application of 1 July 2014 in the proceedings at first instance and order the European Commission to pay to the appellants all the costs of the present proceedings.

—	In the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule afresh and order the European Commission to pay to the appellants all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants dispute the following parts of the judgment under appeal:

—

paragraph 40, in which it is stated that active illegal conduct on the part of an EU institution is only one of the elements necessary for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability for damages, inasmuch as that statement by the General Court is contrary to the second paragraph of Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 May 1992 in Mulder v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90);

—

paragraph 47, in which, contrary to what is set out in Article 36 and Annex VII of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia (‘RC’) to the European Union (‘EU’), the commitments that were undertaken by the RC with regard to the EU during the accession negotiations were referred to incorrectly as ‘principles’, since the present case does not involve any principles but rather the 11 specific commitments agreed by the RC with the EU and which came into force on 9 December 2011;

—

paragraphs 48 to 52, inasmuch as Article 36 and point 1 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU came into force on 9 December 2011 when the Judicial Reform Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period 2011-2015 and the Revised Action Plan of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for Judicial Reform were in force and applicable from 15 December 2010 and 20 May 2010, respectively, and, consequently, after the repeal of those legal acts by the RC — which acts had been previously expressly authorised by the Commission in section 3 of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the RC of 10 October 2012 in which the RC was urged to adopt new legislation on enforcement — and contrary to the general principles of law on the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since with regard to the appellants the repeal of the legal acts referred to had an obvious retroactive effect in that after 9 December 2012 the RC did not adopt any new judicial reform strategy but merely a Strategy for the Development of the Judicial System for the period 2013-2018, and, therefore, the last Judicial Reform Strategy in fact adopted by the Republic of Croatia was that in force on 9 December 2011 (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 January 1974 in Louwage v Commission, 148/73, paragraphs 12 and 28; judgment of the General Court of 17 December 1998 in Embassy Limousines & Services v Parliament, T-203/96, paragraphs 74 to 88; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 May 1975 in CNTA v Commission, 74/74, paragraphs 41 to 44), it being noted that the General Court recognises, in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, in stating that ‘it may not be inferred that the Croatian authorities … were entirely free to amend the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011-2015 and the Action Plan 2010. Having regard to the provisions of the Act of Accession and, in particular, Article 36 thereof and Annex VII thereto, those authorities were obliged to comply not only with Commitment No 1, but also with all the other commitments set out in that annex’, the pertinence of the claim for damages that is set out in the application;

—

paragraphs 54 to 57 and 59 to 63, relating to the failure by the European Commission to fulfil the obligation, under Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation on the RC under point 3 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession to continue to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, inasmuch as it is apparent from the annexes to the application that the Commission presented information from the Ministry of Justice of the RC that was incorrect in relation to the decrease in the number of disputes and enforcement cases pending in the municipal and commercial courts in its monitoring tables for the period between 1 September 2012 and 28 February 2013, without carrying out any technical or arithmetical checks in relation to its analysis, thereby revealing a flagrant lack of care with regard to the importance of the drawing up of those tables;

—

paragraph 68, in that the Commission, in failing to fulfil its obligation, derived from the first and second subparagraphs of Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the commitment by the RC to establish the Croatian public enforcement officer service on 1 January 2012, also failed to fulfil its obligation, under Article 17 TEU, to ensure the application of the Treaty of Accession of the RC to the EU, which is one of the basic treaties of the EU;

—

paragraphs 69 to 82, inasmuch as it was in no way necessary that there be subsequent consistent and express action by the Commission in order to give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the appellants after 9 December 2012, since the appellants’ legitimate expectations had arisen before that date.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/14

Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Darko Graf against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission

(Case C-241/16 P)

(2016/C 251/16)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Appellant: Darko Graf (represented by: L. Duvnjak, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and uphold the claims made by the appellant in his application of 1 July 2014 in the proceedings at first instance and order the European Commission to pay to the appellant all the costs of the present proceedings.

—	In the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule afresh and order the European Commission to pay to the appellant all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant disputes the following parts of the judgment under appeal:

—

paragraphs 48 to 52, inasmuch as Article 36 and point 1 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU came into force on 9 December 2011 when the Judicial Reform Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period 2011-2015 and the Revised Action Plan of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for Judicial Reform were in force and applicable from 15 December 2010 and 20 May 2010, respectively, and, consequently, after the repeal of those legal acts by the RC — which acts had been previously expressly authorised by the Commission in section 3 of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the RC of 10 October 2012 in which the RC was urged to adopt new legislation on enforcement — and contrary to the general principles of law on the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since with regard to the appellant the repeal of the legal acts referred to had an obvious retroactive effect in that after 9 December 2012 the RC did not adopt any new judicial reform strategy but merely a Strategy for the Development of the Judicial System for the period 2013-2018, and, therefore, the last Judicial Reform Strategy in fact adopted by the Republic of Croatia was that in force on 9 December 2011 (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 January 1974 in Louwage v Commission, 148/73, paragraphs 12 and 28; judgment of the General Court of 17 December 1998 in Embassy Limousines & Services v Parliament, T-203/96, paragraphs 74 to 88; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 May 1975 in CNTA v Commission, 74/74, paragraphs 41 to 44), it being noted that the General Court recognises, in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, in stating that ‘it may not be inferred that the Croatian authorities … were entirely free to amend the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011-2015 and the Action Plan 2010. Having regard to the provisions of the Act of Accession and, in particular, Article 36 thereof and Annex VII thereto, those authorities were obliged to comply not only with Commitment No 1, but also with all the other commitments set out in that annex’, the pertinence of the claim for damages that is set out in the application;

—

paragraphs 69 to 82, inasmuch as it was in no way necessary that there be subsequent consistent and express action by the Commission in order to give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the appellant after 9 December 2012, since the appellant’s legitimate expectations had arisen before that date.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited

(Case C-242/16)

(2016/C 251/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso

Defendant: Netjets Management Limited

Questions referred

In the factual context of the present case — the employee is a civil-aviation pilot and the activity carried out by him, under his employment contract, encompasses the whole of the European airspace — is the determination of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ and/or the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, (1) adversely affected?

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, that is, such a determination is not adversely affected:

(i)

Must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft to be flown by the employee is stationed, where he begins the journey at the start of his duties?

And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport, from which the employee was transported to the airport where the aircraft to be flown by him was stationed, and to which he later returned?

And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place of registration of the aircraft flown by him?

And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place from where the employee received instructions, communications and information about the flight operations, various aspects of his professional relationship with the defendant and the process which led to its termination?

(ii)

Must/may the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft flown by the employee for the last time before his employment contract was terminated is stationed?

Or rather, must/may the ‘last place where he did so’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport from which the employee was transported, for the last time before his employment contract was terminated, to the airport where the aircraft which he was due to fly was stationed, and to which he later returned?

In the factual context of the present case, may the expression ‘business which engaged the employee’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where the recruitment process for pilots is conducted (through the reception and processing of the respective candidacies) and where they receive initial and further training, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?

In the factual context of the present case, may the expressions ‘central administration’ or ‘principal place of business’, within the meaning of Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where all the aspects of its operations are controlled (from the control of the maintenance, flight operations and scheduling, to the operation, maintenance and piloting of the aircraft and ground and catering operations) and from where all instructions are issued to the pilots and they receive the initial and further training, human resource issues are managed and disciplinary meetings held or complaints handled, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?

Having regard to the content of recital 13 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 which states that, in relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for, must the abovementioned Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted in a more favourable manner for the employee?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Anklagemyndigheden v Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

(Case C-255/16)

(2016/C 251/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Københavns Byret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendants: Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S

Questions referred

Does this case involve a rule that must be notified under Article 8(1), cf. Article 1, first paragraph, (2), (5), and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, assuming the following:

(a)

amending legislation is to be introduced amending the Law on certain gaming, lotteries and betting (lov om visse spil, lotterier og væddemål), under which a provision is to be introduced on sentencing inter alia for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘offers gaming, lotteries or betting in Denmark without holding a licence pursuant to Paragraph 1’, and for whoever intentionally or through gross negligence ‘advertises gaming, lotteries or betting not covered by a licence under Paragraph 1’, and

(b)

the remarks on the draft amending legislation indicate that the purpose of the abovementioned sentencing provisions is to clarify or introduce a prohibition on gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark and directly targeting the Danish market, partly by prohibiting advertising for, inter alia, gaming offered online by gaming companies outside Denmark, inasmuch as the same remarks it is stated that there is no doubt that, under the rules prevailing before the amendments, gaming measures are unlawful if a gaming company outside Denmark makes use of sales channels in which the gaming device is actually physically sold within the borders of Denmark; there is, however, greater doubt as to whether gaming from outside Denmark aimed at gaming participants in Denmark but actually physically situated outside Denmark is also covered by the provision; and it is therefore necessary to have clarified whether those forms of gaming are covered. It is further apparent from the remarks that it is suggested to introduce an advertising ban on gaming, lotteries and betting which are not licensed under that law, and that the amendment complies with the current prohibition in Paragraph 12(3) of the Law on horserace betting (hestevæddeløbsloven) but is a clarification of Paragraph 10(4) of the [now repealed] Law on betting and lotteries (Tips- og lottoloven). The remarks further state that the purpose of the prohibition is to protect gaming providers holding a licence from the Danish authorities against competition from companies that do not hold such a licence and who therefore cannot lawfully offer or broker gaming in Denmark.

(1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/18

Appeal brought on 10 May 2016 by Kühne + Nagel International AG against the judgment delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12 Kühne + Nagel International AG v European Commission

(Case C-261/16 P)

(2016/C 251/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and C. Klöppner, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.	set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12;

2.	annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(1) and (2), Article 2 and Article 3 of the Commission decision of 28 May 2012 in Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding, C(2012) 1959 final, in so far as it concerns the appellants;

3.	annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellants in the aforementioned decision;

4.	order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants put forward five grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court errs in law in assuming that the concerted practices relating to NES and AMS infringe Article 101 TFEU. Article 101 TFEU is not applicable to those concerted practices because they were not capable of affecting inter-State trade.

Secondly, the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellants is marred by an error in law. Concerted practices contrary to the law on cartels were established in relation to individual charges (‘fees’ or ‘surcharges’). In that regard, the General Court ought to have calculated the fine to be imposed only on the basis of the turnovers redeemed with the respective fee. The General Court misjudged that, by including additional turnovers (in particular the freight rate) in the calculation of the fine, the Commission infringed recital 13 of the guidelines on the setting of fines. By implicitly also taking the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to review as a basis for that method, the General Court itself thereby incorrectly exercised that power.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment. Unlike the other freight forwarders, K+N does not operate according to the consolidation model but, from an economic point of view, behaves as a classic intermediary in over 90 % of transactions. Due to the quite significant differences in the business model, the General Court ought to have proceeded differently and should not have treated different situations in the same way. In particular, the General Court should have annulled the Commission’s calculation of the fine and should have determined, as against the appellants, a fine only on the basis of the turnovers generated with the respective ‘fees’ or ‘surcharges’.

Fourthly, the fine imposed by the General Court is grossly disproportionate. The fine approved by the General Court is clearly excessive and also cannot be justified on grounds of deterrence.

Fifthly, the General Court did not observe the Air Transport Exemption and thus erroneously took, in relation to NES and AMS, the applicability of Article 101 TFEU as a starting point.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/20

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

(Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12) (1)

((State aid - Oil exploration - Implied and unlimited guarantee of the State conferred on the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) by the granting of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Advantage - Presumption of advantage))

(2016/C 251/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: French Republic (represented initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, then by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, then by G. de Bergues, S. Menez, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and lastly by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) (Case T-479/11); and IFP Énergies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented initially by É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers) (Case T-157/12)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, D. Grespan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (OJ 2012 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Article 1(3) to (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));

2.	Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs in Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 and to pay two thirds of the costs borne by the French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles;

4.	Orders the French Republic to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-479/11;

5.	Orders IFP Énergies nouvelles to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the Commission’s costs in Case T-157/12.

(1) OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/21

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Mega Brands v EUIPO — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Case T-292/12 RENV) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by V. Melgar and subsequently by H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Diset and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

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 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/21

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-160/13) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU - Legal certainty - Non-arbitrariness - Breach of fundamental rights))

(2016/C 251/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented initially by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley and G. Beck)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, L. Christie and C. Brodie, and subsequently by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), or annulment of that provision in so far as it does not provide for an exception that applies in the applicant’s case, and for a declaration that Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) is inapplicable.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Bank Mellat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3.	Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/22

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE)

(Case T-454/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark STONE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by: E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1599/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign STONE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Warimex Waren-Import Export Handels-GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/23

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Staywell Hospitality Group and Sheraton International IP v EUIPO — Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)

(Joined Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark PARK REGIS - Earlier European Union figurative mark ST. REGIS - Partial refusal to register - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and A. Bryson, Barrister) (Case T-510/14); and Sheraton International IP, LLC (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer) (Case T-536/14)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Sheraton International IP, LLC (Case T-510/14); and Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Case T-536/14)

Re:

Actions brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 30 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the actions in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14;

2.	In Case T-510/14, orders Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd to pay the costs;

3.	In Case T-536/14, orders Sheraton International IP, LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/24

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)

(Case T-654/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/24

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-662/14) (1)

((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 251/26)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/25

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — HX v Council

(Case T-723/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Modification of the form of order sought - Error of assessment))

(2016/C 251/27)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 49), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 10), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the lists of persons and entities covered by those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls, in so far as they concern HX, Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by HX.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/26

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

(Case T-34/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corp. and UAB SCT Lubricants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs, including those incurred by UAB SCT Lubricants for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/26

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

(Case T-99/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark NOOSFERA - Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2014 (Case R 158/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sfera Joven and Las banderas del Mediterráneo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sfera Joven, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/27

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission

(Case T-110/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Category of documents))

(2016/C 251/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by M. Burgstaller, Solicitor, and E. Wright, Barrister, and subsequently by A. Tymen and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision THOR/C4/LL/el/(S) (2015) 4287 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 6 February 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the investigation concerning it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders International Management Group to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/28

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles)

(Case T-240/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark - Form of a bar with four circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 251/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2015 (Case R 1602/2014 1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a bar with four circles as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/28

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco)

(Case T-254/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Casale Fresco - Earlier EU word mark FREZCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2015 (Case R 1138/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Casale Fresco as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/29

Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.)

(Case T-301/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2015 (Case R 3114/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Du bist, was du erlebst. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Jochen Schweizer GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/30

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY)

(Case T-331/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2015 (Case R 954/2014 2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE SNACK COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Bimbo, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/30

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T-754/14 R)

((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Refusal of registration - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 251/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany), Pedro De Birto E. Abreu Krupenski (Lisbon, Portugal), Susan Vance George (Paris, France), Otto Jaako Kronqvist (Helsinki, Finland), Blanche Léonie Denise Weber (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), John Jephson Hilary (London, United Kingdom), Ileana Lavinia Andrei (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: B. Kempen)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures relating to Commission Decision C (2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the citizens’ initiative ‘STOP TTIP’.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is rejected.

2.	The costs are reserved.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/31

Order of the General Court of 11 May 2016 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-168/15) (1)

((EAFRD - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 251/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 252 final of 26 January 2015 concerning the reduction of the interim payments relating to Greece’s rural development programme CCI 2007 GR 06 RPO 001 for the 2007-13 programming period and to the expenditure in respect of the periods from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2014 and from 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/32

Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T-310/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of copper compounds on that list - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures - Inadmissible))

(2016/C 251/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council.

3.	European Union Copper Task Force is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/32

Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission

(Case T-601/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’ - SEABIOPLAS contract - Demand for payment of the financial contribution due - Offsetting - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 251/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission pay the first instalment of the grant due to the applicant under the SEABIOPLAS contract (reference FP7-SME-2013-606032-SEABIOPLAS) concerning a technological research and development project in the area entitled ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/33

Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission

(Case T-191/16)

(2016/C 251/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	uphold the action;·

—	annul the contested act or decision of 16/02/2016 of the European Commission C(2016) 1080 ‘on the recovery of a total amount of EUR 109 415,20 plus interest due by LITO HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN SA’;

—	declare that the work time provided by the applicant’s staff for the performance of the project is what is stated as fact in the action;

—	take account of the applicant’s submissions if the Court holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 5 November 2009 are to be refunded

—	annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

—	set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for ten years;

—	hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment, and

—	order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	The first plea is based on an infringement of a rule of law by the European Commission and the impossibility of the European Commission adopting an act that is challengeable under Article 263 TFEU with respect to this case.

2.	The second plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the evidence submitted to it.

3.	The third plea is that the European Commission failed to take into account the substantive arguments submitted to it during the whole procedure.

4.	The fourth plea is based on an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

5.	The fifth plea is that the existence of a term of the contract which provides for only one way of proving the work done is abusive.

6.	The sixth plea is that the sum sought by the Commission’s claim is out of time.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/34

Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

(Case T-205/16)

(2016/C 251/40)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and D. Stepanienė

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Decision No C(2016)969 final of 23 February 2016 concerning the reduction in support from the Cohesion Fund for the project carried out in Lithuania and entitled ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’ (2005LT16CPA001) to the extent that it provides for a reduction in support in the amount of EUR 137 864,61;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the Republic of Lithuania relies on a ground which relates to an infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation No 16/2003, (1) in conjunction with the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the European Commission, in deciding to reduce the support from the 2000-2006 EU Cohesion Fund:

—

failed to take into account the fact that the VAT costs incurred as a result of implementing Commission Decision No C(2005)5291 (2) approving the project ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’ (‘the project’) were eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the requirements of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 16/2003 and other requirements;

—

wrongly interpreted Article 11(3) of Regulation No 16/2003 as being applicable to the project because, regardless of the question whether the VAT costs must be reimbursed, such an interpretation is inconsistent with Article 11(1) of Regulation No 16/2003 and lacks legal logic and practical applicability in connection with the financing of Cohesion Fund projects;

—

failed to consider Article 3(2) of Commission Decision No C(2005)5291, which provides that, pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1164/94, (3) Community assistance was prescribed for 100 % of the project value (that is to say, no contribution by the person carrying out the project was envisaged) and the Member State could reasonably expect that the project would be financed in full by funds from the Cohesion Fund, that is to say, that all of the rules laid down by Regulation No 16/2003 would be applied in a proper manner.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 16/2003 of 6 January 2003 laying down special detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards eligibility of expenditure in the context of measures part-financed by the Cohesion Fund (OJ 2003 L 2, p. 7).

(2) Commission Decision No C(2005) 5291 of 8 December 2005 concerning the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project concerning Technical Assistance for Cohesion Fund Management in the Republic of Lithuania governing CCI 2005/LT/16/C/PA/001, as amended by Commission Decision No C(2008) 1566 of 15 April 2008 and Commission Decision No C(2011) 3668 of 20 May 2011.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1), repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 79).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/35

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T-206/16)

(2016/C 251/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRES TOROS 3’ — Application for registration No 12 796 926

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 407/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

admit its action against the contested decision, annul that decision and hold that:

1)	the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for;

in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33.

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs and to reimburse the appeal fees paid by the applicant to EUIPO, as the case may be.

Plea in law

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

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/36

Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

(Case T-207/16)

(2016/C 251/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the decision to exclude the applicant;

—	annul the decision to register the applicant in and activate the Early Warning System and/or the Early Detection and Exclusion System, and

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority with respect to the exclusion of the applicant and, second, of the decision of the competent authorising officer and/or the competent contracting authority whereby registration was applied for or effected, and the exclusion warning activated by the Commission, with respect to the applicant, in the Early Warning System and or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System which is operated by the European Commission.

The applicant submits that the contested acts should be annulled for the following reasons:

1.	First, infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

2.	Second, infringement of the provisions of Decision 2014/792/EU (1) with respect to the Early Warning System and Regulation 2015/1929 (2) with respect to the Early Detection and Exclusion System, the right to a hearing and the principle of proportionality.

3.	Third, infringement of the general principles of good administration and transparency.

(1) 2014/792/EU: Commission Decision of 13 November 2014 on the Early Warning System to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 68)

(2) Regulation (ΕE, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1)

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/37

Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)

(Case T-215/16)

(2016/C 251/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cop Vertriebs-GmbH (Aresing, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Conexa LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘AMPHIBIAN’ — International registration designating the European Union No 359 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1984/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul or alter the contested decision;

—	annul or alter the decision of the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2015 in cancellation proceedings No 9736 C;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs;

—	fix a date for the hearing.

Plea in law

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

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/38

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission

(Case T-217/16)

(2016/C 251/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente, A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

uphold the grounds for annulment put forward and annul Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not;

—

expressly acknowledge that Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, has retroactive effects.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the abovementioned regulation in so far as, notwithstanding the fact that the latter repealed the anti-dumping duties initially imposed on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia, as a result of the decisions adopted by the relevant WTO authorities, Article 2 of that regulation restricts the possible reimbursement of the duties paid by refusing to make the repeal retroactive, allowing the continued existence in law of anti-dumping duties contrary to the regulatory rules of the WTO, without there being an objective public policy justification for such a decision.

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

First plea in law, based on the unlawfulness of Article 2 of the contested regulation, on the ground that it was contrary to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that since the Commission itself acknowledges in the contested regulation that the anti-dumping duties have been repealed because of the infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Council, the lawfulness of the contested article has to be assessed having regard to the obligations assumed by the European Union in entering into the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

—

In addition, as may be seen from the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the European Union, as a contracting party to that agreement, could only impose anti-dumping duties by observing the procedure laid down in that international agreement. Since the Council infringed several provisions of that agreement when imposing the anti-dumping duties repealed, as is expressly acknowledged in Regulation (EU) 2016/278, the European Union was never entitled to impose the duties repealed, so that the effects of the repeal can in no case be limited.

Second plea in law, based on legal certainty and the principle of unjust enrichment

—

The applicant submits in that regard that the need to acknowledge that the repeal of the anti-dumping duties has retroactive effect stems from the purpose of the regulation in question, since that regulation acknowledges the infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Council when it imposed the anti-dumping duties.

—

In addition, in the same way as the Court of Justice has required Member States to return those amounts collected in breach of Community law, the same conclusion applies to the amounts collected by the European Union in breach of its own law such as the Anti-Dumping Agreement. To deny that the repeal has retroactive effect would mean that individuals must bear the effects of unlawful conduct without the possibility of any form of remedy for the unlawful damage that they ought never to have sustained.

Third plea in law, based on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

—

In the applicant’s view, the acknowledgement that the international obligations assumed by the European Union had been infringed, by the imposition of the anti-dumping duties contrary to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, gave rise to well-founded expectations that the Commission would adopt a regulation consistent with the infringement acknowledged by it, without allowing the continued existence of the unlawful effects caused by unlawful anti-dumping duties.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/39

Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)

(Case T-223/16)

(2016/C 251/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Massive Bionics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Galindo Martens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple, Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘DriCloud’ — Application for registration No 11 723 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03/03/2016 in Case R 339/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the defendants to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/40

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)

(Case T-241/16)

(2016/C 251/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘EW’ — Application for registration No 12 326 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 in Case R 426/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/41

Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission

(Case T-250/16 P)

(2016/C 251/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by G. Belotti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the order under appeal;

—	rule on the merits of the proceedings at first instance, upholding all the claims made by the appellant in that application, including the claim for damages which it is for this Court to quantify in a fair manner;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs in both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016, which dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action seeking essentially, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) not to consider further the appellant’s application for the position of head of the ‘Legal Advice’ unit and, second, the claim for the payment of damages by the European Commission stemming from, in the appellant’s opinion, loss of chance of being selected to occupy that post.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging certain defects in the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, adversely affecting the appellant’s interests.

—	The appellant claims in particular, in that respect, that there are no arguments in the order under appeal relating to the alleged manifestly unfounded nature of the action.

Second plea in law, alleging substantial inaccuracy of the factual findings when viewed in the light of the documents in the case.

—	The appellant claims, in particular, in that respect, that the candidate selected for the post at issue lacked experience and the requirements of balanced geographical representation and equality of merits were incorrectly assessed.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law, resulting from the failure to apply, during the pre-selection stage, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality and that of non-discrimination on the ground of language.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging the incorrect legal characterisation of the facts

Fifth plea in law, alleging the incorrect ‘legal characterisation’ of the applicant’s plea in law requesting the Civil Service Tribunal to extend the effects of the annulment of the decision under appeal and thereby declare the selection procedure at issue invalid from the point at which the ‘unlawful act established’ occurred.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/42

Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission

(Case T-254/16)

(2016/C 251/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. van den Broucke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

primarily,

—

find that the European Commission made multiple manifest errors of assessment and infringed its duty to state reasons in relation to the characterisation of the existence of an advantage conferred by the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg), both in the analysis of the comparability of the Sumitomo and Rabobank loans and in the application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication;

in the alternative,

—

find that the European Commission made a manifest error of assessment concerning the compatibility of the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) by holding that the 2009 Communication setting a temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis was not applicable;

in any event and consequently,

—	annul Article 1(e) of the European Commission’s Decision C(2016) 94 of 20 January 2016 on the State aid SA.33926 2013/C implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco;

—	annul Articles 2 to 4 of that decision inasmuch as they concern the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg);

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) did not confer any advantage and that the Commission made an error of assessment by holding that the loan at issue amounted to State aid.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the application of the Commission’s Communication — Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (OJ 2009 C 83, p. 1).

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/43

Action brought on 19 May 2016 – NM v European Council

(Case T-257/16)

(2016/C 251/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NM (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor, and P. O’Shea, BL)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18 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 18 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.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/44

Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)

(Case T-258/16)

(2016/C 251/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GINRAW’ — Application for registration No 12 431 681

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1583/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark;

—	order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/45

Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

(Case T-259/16)

(2016/C 251/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Trost Auto Service Technik SE (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AUTOSERVICE.COM’ — Application for registration No 13 593 678

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1770/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

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

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/45

Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)

(Case T-271/16)

(2016/C 251/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yusuf Pempe (Créteil, France) (represented by: A. Vivès-Albertini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marshall Amplification plc (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS’ – Application for registration No 11 570 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 376/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	reject the oppostion in its entirety;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 concerning the proof of use and the likelihood of confusion between signs.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/46

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)

(Case T-276/16)

(2016/C 251/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Hollnseth, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Boswelan’ — European Union trade mark No 3 381 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 February 2016 in Case R 2837/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it rejects the applicant’s appeal against the declaration of the revocation of European Union trade mark No 003381563 in relation to ‘medicinal products for the treatment of multiple sclerosis’;

—	order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark;

—	Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proper reasons for non-use of the mark;

—	Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, in particular infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/48

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case F-41/10 RENV) (1)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Official who has been the victim of harassment - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Official, whistleblower - Request for assistance - Rejection - Right to protection - Conditions - Rejection - Consequences - Application for compensation))

(2016/C 251/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee EESC (represented by: initially U. Schwab and M. Lernhart, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, then K. Gambino, acting as Agent, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, finally K. Gambino and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of several decisions terminating the applicant’s service as the Head of Unit of the Legal Service with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and refusing his formal application for assistance and the application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1)	Annuls the decisions of the President of the European Economic and Social Committee of 24 March 2010 terminating Mr Moises Bermejo Garde’s previous duties as Head of Unit of the Legal Service and of 13 April 2010 relating to his reassignment;

2)	Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to pay Mr Bermejo Garde the sum of EUR 25 000;

3)	Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde in Cases F-41/10, T-530/12 P and F-41/10 RENV.

(1) OJ C 209, 31/7/2010, p. 55.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/49

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 — GW v Commission

(Case F-111/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Concrete and detailed examination))

(2016/C 251/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GW (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1)	Annuls the European Commission’s decision refusing to consider the costs in itemised accounts Nos 67 and 68 of 7 February 2014 and No 72 of 12 March 2014 relating to Mrs T’s healthcare to be reimbursable;

2)	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GW.

(1) OJ C 354 of 26/10/2015, p. 55.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/49

Action brought on 31 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-18/16)

(2016/C 251/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application seeking (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision not to regard the applicant as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and (ii) a finding that Commission Communication SEC (2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, which amends the rules governing the composition of the cabinets of the Members of the Commission and spokespersons, is unlawful.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	annul the decision rejecting his request to be regarded as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

—	incidentally, given the failure to implement Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations fully and in a non-discriminatory manner, annul the communication of 2013 (and the communication of 2014 in so far as it reproduces the communication of 2013);

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/50

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — ZZ v CPVO

(Case F-22/16)

(2016/C 251/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract and an application seeking that she be awarded compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	annul the decision of the AECE of 24 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract beyond 31 December 2015;

—	annul the AECE’s decision of 20 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 15 September 2015 against that decision;

—	pay compensation for the material harm suffered as a result of the above, evaluated provisionally, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 119 767;

—	award the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

11.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/52

Action brought on 18 May 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-25/16)

(2016/C 251/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure and an application for damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 7 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 under the 2013 promotion procedure;

—	order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000;

—	order the EEAS to pay the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 251

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 59 11 July 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 251/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1
	General Court
2016/C 251/02	Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court	2

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2016/C 251/03	Case C-578/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by Mansour Dairek Attoumi against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-278/14 Dairek Attoumi v OHIM-Diesel	3
2016/C 251/04	Case C-160/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic	3
2016/C 251/05	Case C-193/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2016 — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava	4
2016/C 251/06	Case C-196/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente	5
2016/C 251/07	Case C-197/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente	5
2016/C 251/08	Case C-206/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2016 — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)	6
2016/C 251/09	Case C-207/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal	7
2016/C 251/10	Case C-211/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2016 — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino	7
2016/C 251/11	Case C-212/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 15 April 2016 — DUK Versorgungswerk eV, Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH	8
2016/C 251/12	Case C-223/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.	9
2016/C 251/13	Case C-226/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer	10
2016/C 251/14	Case C-239/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2016 by Ante Šumelj and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Joined Cases T-546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14 Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission	11
2016/C 251/15	Case C-240/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Vedran Vidmar and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission	13
2016/C 251/16	Case C-241/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Darko Graf against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission	14
2016/C 251/17	Case C-242/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited	16
2016/C 251/18	Case C-255/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Københavns Byret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Anklagemyndigheden v Bent Falbert, Poul Madsen, JP/Politikens Hus A/S	17
2016/C 251/19	Case C-261/16 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 2016 by Kühne + Nagel International AG against the judgment delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12 Kühne + Nagel International AG v European Commission	18
	General Court
2016/C 251/20	Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (State aid — Oil exploration — Implied and unlimited guarantee of the State conferred on the French Petroleum Institute (IFP) by the granting of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) — Advantage — Presumption of advantage)	20
2016/C 251/21	Case T-292/12 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Mega Brands v EUIPO — Diset (MAGNEXT) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT — Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	21
2016/C 251/22	Case T-160/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Legal safeguards as referred to in Article 215(3) TFEU — Legal certainty — Non-arbitrariness — Breach of fundamental rights)	21
2016/C 251/23	Case T-454/14: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Warimex v EUIPO (STONE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark STONE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	22
2016/C 251/24	Joined Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Staywell Hospitality Group and Sheraton International IP v EUIPO — Sheraton International IP and Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark PARK REGIS — Earlier European Union figurative mark ST. REGIS — Partial refusal to register — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)	23
2016/C 251/25	Case T-654/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	24
2016/C 251/26	Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)	24
2016/C 251/27	Case T-723/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — HX v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Modification of the form of order sought — Error of assessment)	25
2016/C 251/28	Case T-34/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHEMPIOIL — Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)	26
2016/C 251/29	Case T-99/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark NOOSFERA — Earlier national word and figurative marks SFERA, Sfera colours and sfera CENTROS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	26
2016/C 251/30	Case T-110/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — International Management Group v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation — Access refused — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Category of documents)	27
2016/C 251/31	Case T-240/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles) (European Union trade mark — Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark — Form of a bar with four circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)	28
2016/C 251/32	Case T-254/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Casale Fresco — Earlier EU word mark FREZCO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	28
2016/C 251/33	Case T-301/15: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	29
2016/C 251/34	Case T-331/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Bimbo v EUIPO (THE SNACK COMPANY) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative mark THE SNACK COMPANY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)	30
2016/C 251/35	Case T-754/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Refusal of registration — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)	30
2016/C 251/36	Case T-168/15: Order of the General Court of 11 May 2016 — Greece v Commission (EAFRD — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate)	31
2016/C 251/37	Case T-310/15: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 — Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution — Inclusion of copper compounds on that list — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures — Inadmissible)	32
2016/C 251/38	Case T-601/15: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — CEVA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Technological research and development project in the area entitled Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics — SEABIOPLAS contract — Demand for payment of the financial contribution due — Offsetting — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)	32
2016/C 251/39	Case T-191/16: Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v European Commission	33
2016/C 251/40	Case T-205/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission	34
2016/C 251/41	Case T-206/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)	35
2016/C 251/42	Case T-207/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission	36
2016/C 251/43	Case T-215/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)	37
2016/C 251/44	Case T-217/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission	38
2016/C 251/45	Case T-223/16: Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)	39
2016/C 251/46	Case T-241/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)	40
2016/C 251/47	Case T-250/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission	41
2016/C 251/48	Case T-254/16: Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission	42
2016/C 251/49	Case T-257/16: Action brought on 19 May 2016 – NM v European Council	43
2016/C 251/50	Case T-258/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)	44
2016/C 251/51	Case T-259/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)	45
2016/C 251/52	Case T-271/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)	45
2016/C 251/53	Case T-276/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Viridis Pharmaceutical v EUIPO — Hecht-Pharma (Boswelan)	46
	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2016/C 251/54	Case F-41/10 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Official who has been the victim of harassment — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Official, whistleblower — Request for assistance — Rejection — Right to protection — Conditions — Rejection — Consequences — Application for compensation)	48
2016/C 251/55	Case F-111/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 — GW v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Concrete and detailed examination)	49
2016/C 251/56	Case F-18/16: Action brought on 31 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission	49
2016/C 251/57	Case F-21/16: Action brought on 28 April 2016 — ZZ v Frontex	50
2016/C 251/58	Case F-22/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — ZZ v CPVO	50
2016/C 251/59	Case F-23/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission	51
2016/C 251/60	Case F-24/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission	51
2016/C 251/61	Case F-25/16: Action brought on 18 May 2016 — ZZ v EEAS	52