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

(2016/C 441/01)

Last publication

OJ C 428, 21.11.2016

Past publications

OJ C 419, 14.11.2016

OJ C 410, 7.11.2016

OJ C 402, 31.10.2016

OJ C 392, 24.10.2016

OJ C 383, 17.10.2016

OJ C 371, 10.10.2016

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others

(Case C-218/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 6 TEU - Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law - Italian nationals having organised the illegal entry into Italy of Romanian nationals - Acts carried out before the accession of Romania to the European Union - Effect of Romania’s accession on the criminal offence of facilitation of illegal immigration - Implementation of EU law - Jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 441/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso

Parties in the main proceedings

Gianpaolo Paoletti, Umberto Castaldi, Domenico Faricelli, Antonio Angelucci, Mauro Angelucci, Antonio D’Ovidio, Camillo Volpe, Giampaolo Canzano, Raffaele Di Giovanni, Antonio Della Valle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 TEU and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a State to the European Union does not preclude another Member State imposing a criminal penalty on persons who committed, before the accession, the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration for nationals of the first State.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano

(Case C-318/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 7(c) - Threshold amount for public contracts - Threshold not reached - Abnormally low tenders - Automatic exclusion - Discretion of the contracting authority - Obligations of the contracting authority arising from freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination - Contracts which may be of certain cross-border interest))

(2016/C 441/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

Defendant: Comune di Fossano

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte (Piedmont Regional Administrative Court, Italy) by decision of 29 April 2015 is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

(Case C-412/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 132(1)(d) - Supplies of human organs, blood and milk - Scope - Plasma of human blood transformed and used for industrial purposes))

(2016/C 441/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that supplies of human blood which Member States are required to exempt by virtue of that provision do not include supplies of plasma obtained from human blood where that plasma is intended to be used, not for direct therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of medicinal products.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Jean-Michel Adrien and Others v Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique

(Case C-466/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - National detached officials within an EU institution or body - Old-age pension - Right to opt - Suspension or maintenance of the affiliation to the national pension scheme - Limitation on the aggregation of the pension acquired under the national pension scheme with that acquired under the EU pension scheme))

(2016/C 441/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean-Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm, Éléonore von Bardeleben

Defendants: Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect that a national official seconded to an EU institution or body who chooses to remain affiliated to the national pension scheme for the duration of his secondment loses all or part of the advantages accruing from his affiliation to that scheme if he completes 10 years’ service with the European Union entitling him to a pension under the European Union pension scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ

(Case C-572/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Patent - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 21(2) - Transitional provisions - Certificate granted in accordance with the national legislation of a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union - Interpretation of Article 21(2) - Duration of validity of the certificate - Validity of Article 21(2) - Adjustment to secondary legislation resulting directly from the Act of Accession - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 441/06)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

Defendant: Accord Healthcare OÜ

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

2.

Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a supplementary protection certificate, relating to a given medicinal product, granted by a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union. To the extent that that medicinal product was the subject, within the European Economic Area, of a marketing authorisation before that granted in that Member State, and, as the case may be, before its accession to the European Union, only the first marketing authorisation must be taken into account for the purposes of determining the duration of validity of the supplementary protection certificate.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-576/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 14(1) - Articles 73, 80 and 273 - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Tax evasion - Anomalies in accounting - Concealment of supplies and revenue - Determination of the taxable amount))

(2016/C 441/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Маya Маrinova ET

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1), Article 14(1) and Articles 73 and 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where goods are not in the warehouse of the taxable person to whom they have been supplied and the tax documents of relevance to those goods have not been recorded in the accounts of that taxable person, tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand pursuant to rules not provided for in that directive. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain whether the provisions of the national legislation go further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-583/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport policy - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Road Transport - Administrative simplification and cooperation - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - Interconnection of national electronic registers))

(2016/C 441/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, M. M. Farrajota and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court

1)

Declares that, by failing to create a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by failing therefore to establish the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed in its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

2)	Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 29.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-23/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - Lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States))

(2016/C 441/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Declares that, by not creating a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by not establishing the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 October 2009, establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

2)	Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (Spain) lodged on 24 August 2016 — Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and In-pulso Musical, Sociedad Cooperativa

(Case C-472/16)

(2016/C 441/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza

Respondents: Ayuntamiento de Valladolid, In-pulso Musical, Sociedad Cooperativa

Questions referred

1.

Should it be considered that there is a transfer for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) where the holder of a concession of a Council Music School, which receives all the material resources from that Council (premises, instruments, classrooms, furniture), has engaged its own staff and provides its services during the academic year, ceases that activity on 1 April 2013, two months before the end of the academic year, returning all the material resources to the Council, which does not resume the activity for the remainder of the academic year 2012-2013, but awards a new concession to a new contractor, which resumes the activity in September 2013, at the beginning of the new academic year 2013-14, transferring to the new contractor for that purpose the necessary material resources previously made available to the former contractor by the Council (premises, instruments, classrooms, furniture)?

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it to be understood for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC that, in the circumstances described, — in which the failure of the main undertaking (the Council) to fulfil its obligations obliges the first contractor to cease its activity and to dismiss all its staff and immediately afterwards that main undertaking transfers the material resources to a second contractor, which continues with the same activity –, the dismissal of the first contractor’s workers has occurred for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce’ or has it been caused by ‘the transfer of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business’, a cause prohibited by that article?

3.

If the reply to the previous question is that the dismissal has been caused by the transfer and is therefore contrary to Directive 2001/23/EC, is Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation prohibiting a court from ruling on the substance of the claims of a worker who contests in an individual action the decision to dismiss him, as part of a collective dismissal, in order to defend the rights deriving from 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 and Council Directive 98/59/EC (2) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, owing to the fact that final judgment has already been given on the collective dismissal in proceedings to which the worker was unable to be a party, although the unions established in the undertaking and all the collective legal representatives of the workers were or were able to be parties?

---

(1)  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).

(2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

(Case C-474/16)

(2016/C 441/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Colmar

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

Question referred

Is the legal effect of an A1 certificate issued to a temporary-work agency, in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) by the institution designated by the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the employed worker, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, if it is found that the conditions under which the employee pursues the activity clearly do not fall within the substantive scope of the specific rules set out in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

---

(1)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

(Case C-486/16)

(2016/C 441/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Defendant: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Questions referred

1.

First.- Is it contrary to Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to take into account, when deciding whether an early repayment term, like that in the contract at issue concluded between an operator and a consumer, is unfair, not only the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract but also the seriousness of the breach by the consumer after the formation of the contract?

2.

Second.- Is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts for an enforcement order to be made on the basis of an early repayment term declared unfair by a final judgment given in previous mortgage enforcement proceedings between the same parties and based on the same mortgage loan agreement, even if that earlier judgment is not recognised under national law as having the positive effect of substantive res judicata, but national law does provide that fresh enforcement proceedings may not be brought on the basis of the same enforceable instrument?

3.

Third.- In mortgage enforcement proceedings in which the court of first instance refused to make an enforcement order because the application was based on an early repayment term declared unfair in other, earlier mortgage enforcement proceedings, based on the same instrument and between the same parties, and in which the refusal to make an enforcement order was overturned by the appeal court which referred the case back so that an enforcement order could be made at first instance, is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make the decision on appeal binding on the lower court or must national law be interpreted as meaning that the lower court is not bound by the decision on appeal when there is already an earlier final judgment annulling the early repayment term on which the enforcement order is based and, in that case, must the application for enforcement again be ruled inadmissible?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP v Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

(Case C-491/16)

(2016/C 441/13)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP

Defendant: Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

Questions referred

1.

Must the Operational Programme for Rural Development, (‘the AGRO Programme’) be considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 (repealed by Article 107 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (2) of 11 July 2006, without prejudice to Article 105(1) thereof)?

2.

Must the AGRO Programme be considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (3) of 18 December 1995, according to which ‘in the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’?

3.

In the event that the AGRO Programme is considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95: — Is the limitation period for the administrative measures conducted pursuant to that programme subject to expiry after 4 years, as set out in Article 3(1)? — If the limitation period of 4 years ends before the termination of the programme, does this result in expiry, or — In view of the provision in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, is the dies ad quem of the limitation period extended, so that it coincides with the date when the ‘[multiannual] programme is definitively terminated’?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 September 2016 — Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited

(Case C-498/16)

(2016/C 441/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maximilian Schrems

Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision loses that status, if, after the comparatively long use of a private Facebook account, he publishes books in connection with the enforcement of his claims, on occasion also delivers lectures for remuneration, operates websites, collects donations for the enforcement of his claims and has assigned to him the claims of numerous consumers on the assurance that he will remit to them any proceeds awarded, after the deduction of legal costs?

2.

Is Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer in a Member State can also invoke at the same time as his own claims arising from a consumer supply at the claimant’s place of jurisdiction the claims of others consumers on the same subject who are domiciled a. in the same Member State, b. in another Member State: or c. in a non-Member State, if the claims assigned to him arise from consumer supplies involving the same defendant in the same legal context and if the assignment is not part of a professional or trade activity of the applicant, but rather serves to ensure the joint enforcement of claims?

---

(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.

Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych v Council of the European Union

(Case C-505/16 P)

(2016/C 441/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) dated 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14 to the extent particularised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appeal, namely: — paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of that Order; — paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) dated 12 July 2016 in Case T-347/14 to the extent that the Court considers that the same paragraph 3 requires the Council of the European Union to pay only the costs incurred by the Appellant but not the costs incurred by the Deceased;

—

remit the case to the General Court for hearing and judgment or alternatively: — grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court to the extent particularised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appeal, namely to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 (1) of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119, Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 (2) of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (3) of 5 March 2015 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (4) of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014, in so far as those measures concern Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych and — to the extent that the Court considers that the General Court has not already done so, order the Council of the European Union to pay both the Appellant’s costs and the costs incurred by the Deceased in relation to the claim for annulment made in the Application; — order the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellant’s costs, to include those incurred by the Deceased, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the Statement of Modification;

—	in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the General Court erred in law in concluding, at paragraphs 84, 89 and 92 of the Contested Order, that the Statement of Modification was inadmissible because it was lodged in the name of the Deceased after his death. The Court wrongly concluded that in the circumstances of this case the admissibility of the Statement of Modification was to be solely assessed by reference to the situation at the time the Statement of Modification was lodged. Rather, the admissibility of the Statement of Modification ought to have been assessed holistically by reference to all of the circumstances of the case.

Secondly, even if the General Court was correct in its conclusion that the admissibility of the Statement of Modification was to be solely assessed by reference to the situation at the time at which it was lodged, the General Court erred in law in concluding that the Statement of Modification was not, in substance, presented in the name of the Appellant. The Statement of Modification, read in the context of the other material with which the General Court was presented, clearly showed that it was lodged in the Deceased’s name by/on behalf of the Appellant in her capacity as the de facto successor and heir to the Deceased. As such, it was admissible by reference to the factual situation at the time it was lodged. In reaching the contrary conclusion, the General Court erred in law by distorting the evidence that was before it.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law since it failed to distinguish between (i) the admissibility of the Statement of Modification and (ii) the admissibility of a Second Annulment Application. The General Court: (1) wrongly failed to take into account the fact that it had granted a stay in relation to the Statement of Modification; (2) wrongly concluded that the admissibility of the Statement of Modification should be decided by reference solely to the situation prevailing at the time when the Statement of Modification was lodged; (3) wrongly ignored the fact that Ukrainian succession law determines the successor six months after death but with retrospective effect, and (4) as a result, wrongly and without any justification, deprived the Appellant of access to court to challenge the 2015 Acts as successor and heir or otherwise.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

OJ L 24, p. 16

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

OJ L 24, p. 1

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

OJ L 62, p. 25

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

OJ L 62, p. 1

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2016 — ‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-507/16)

(2016/C 441/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD

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

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 214 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the right to deduct input tax, different weight is to be attached to the cases of registration for the purposes of value added tax, or does Article 214 of that directive preclude the Member States from attaching differing weight to the cases of registration, as is the position under Articles 97а and 70(4) of the ZDDS?

2.

Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has been registered pursuant to Article 214(1)(e) of that directive is not entitled to deduct input tax declared by him in respect of supplies to him of services carried out by taxable persons from other Member States if he uses those supplies in order to provide services in other Member States and the other substantive and procedural conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct are satisfied?

3.

Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 70(4) of the ZDDS, under which a taxable person who has been registered for purposes of value added tax pursuant to Article 214(1)(d) or (e) of that directive, and not pursuant to Article 214(1)(a) thereof, has under no circumstances a right to deduct input tax?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

(OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/16)

(2016/C 441/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that in not adopting by 1 June 2015 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, or at least in not informing the Commission of those measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2014/27/EU;

—	impose upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 8 710 with effect from the day of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU;

—	order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 1 June 2015.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU within the period for its transposition laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

(Case T-351/13) (1)

((Dumping - Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Determination of normal value - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 441/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls)

(Case T-367/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Fruitfuls - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A.-C. Richter, P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and T. Reher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: represented initially by A. Poch, and subsequently by G. Schneider and D. Gája and finally by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Chiquita Brands LLC (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Chiquita Brands and August Storck.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 March 2014 (Case R 1580/2013-5) in so far as it confirmed the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the revocation of the contested mark as regards ‘confectionery’ included in Class 30 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Sina Bank v Council

(Case T-418/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Amendment of pleadings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Adjustment of the effects in time of an annulment))

(2016/C 441/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment, on the one hand, of the Council decision, as contained in the notice published on 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 C 77, p. 1), to maintain the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and, on the other, Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 19), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 3), Council Decision 2015/1008/CFSP of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 19) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 1), in so far as those measures maintained the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, and in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union, as contained in the notice published on 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to maintain the name of Sina Bank on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

2.

Annuls Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those measures maintained the name of Sina Bank on the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, or in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012;

3.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2015/1008, in respect of Sina Bank, from the date of its entry into force until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal has been brought within that period against the present judgment, until the date on which that appeal is dismissed;

4.	Orders the Council to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Eveready Battery Company v EUIPO — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)

(Case T-824/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POWER EDGE - Earlier EU word mark EDGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (Saint-Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Imran Hussain, Rizwana Hussain, Maariah Hussain, Danyaal Hussain and Zahra Hussain (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 38/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eveready Battery Company and the Hussains.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Eveready Battery Company, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT)

(Case T-56/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1121/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRAUWELT as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK)

(Case T-776/15) (1)

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

(2016/C 441/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 531/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEISSEN KERAMIK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Messen Kermaik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)

(Case T-662/16)

(2016/C 441/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Styriagra’ — EU trade mark application No 12 161 469

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 724/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision and reject the opposition (Opposition Procedure No 002286568) to Community trade mark No 000233890;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

Appeal brought on 19 September by Pieter De Meyer and others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-113/15 Adriaen a.o. v Commission

(Case T-667/16 P)

(2016/C 441/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Pieter De Meyer (Brussels, Belgium) and 8 others (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the Judgment of 20 July 2016 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-113/15;

—	annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the names of the appellants are not included therein;

—	order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicants’ first plea as unfounded. The appellants argue that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to their first plea in law: — first, the Tribunal established, in contravention to applicable case law, that it does not need to review the legality of the Appointing Authority’s actions if the Appointing Authority declares that it has satisfied its legal duties and obligations; — second, the Tribunal was erroneous in dismissing the Joint Monitoring Committee Report as evidence and failing to effectively consider the demonstrated incomparability found in the sources of information used by the Appointing Authority; — third, the Tribunal erroneously ignored — without justification — the existence of the argument and evidence put forward by the applicants regarding the mathematical evaluation of the Appointing Authority’s literary assessment methodology as well as the entire second branch of the applicants first plea in law; — fourth, the Tribunal was erroneous in its presumption that absence of an effective evaluation of comparative merits cannot give rise to annulment of a decision on promotion.

2.

Second plea in law, the appellants argue that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law with regards to their second plea in law: — first by arbitrarily limiting the scope and applicability of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations as well as the applicants’ fundamental rights under Union law in a manner incompatible with the will of the Union legislature; and — second, by rejecting the applicants’ second plea as unfounded on manifestly erroneous grounds.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review, giving rise to a violation of the applicants’ right to an effective remedy, the appellants argue that: — first, the Judge-Rapporteur made prejudicial statements demonstrating subjective bias in the Preparatory Report which pre-emptively decided the outcome of the applicants’ pleas in law; — second, the President of the Tribunal failed to recuse the Judge and transfer the case to a different Chamber while admitting that the contested prejudicial statements were copied and pasted from a different case involving different applicants; — third, the Tribunal selectively ignored and dismissed crucial arguments and evidence without consideration or review. In conclusion, the appellants consider that their right to an effective remedy has been violated by the Tribunal due to its failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review.

Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission

(Case T-668/16 P)

(2016/C 441/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: HL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of 20 July 2016 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-112/15;

—	annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the name of the appellant is not included therein;

—	order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicant’s first plea as unfounded. The appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to his first plea in law: — first, the Tribunal established, in contravention to applicable case law, that it does not need to review the legality of the Appointing Authority’s actions if the Appointing Authority declares that it has satisfied its legal duties and obligations; — second, the Tribunal was erroneous in dismissing the Joint Monitoring Committee Report as evidence and failing to effectively consider the demonstrated incomparability found in the sources of information used by the Appointing Authority; — third, the Tribunal erroneously ignored — without justification — the existence of the argument and evidence put forward by the appellant regarding the mathematical evaluation of the Appointing Authority’s literary assessment methodology as well as the entire second branch of his first plea in law; — fourth, the Tribunal was erroneous in its presumption that absence of an effective evaluation of comparative merits cannot give rise to annulment of a decision on promotion.

2.

Second plea in law, the appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law with regards to his second plea in law: — first by arbitrarily limiting the scope and applicability of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations as well as the appellant’s fundamental rights under Union law in a manner incompatible with the will of the Union legislature; and — second, by rejecting the appellant’s second plea as unfounded on manifestly erroneous grounds.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review, giving rise to a violation of the appellant’s right to an effective remedy, the appellant argues that: — first, the Judge-Rapporteur made prejudicial statements demonstrating subjective bias in the Preparatory Report which pre-emptively decided the outcome of the appellant’s pleas in law; — second, the President of the Tribunal failed to recuse the Judge and transfer the case to a different Chamber while admitting that the contested prejudicial statements were copied and pasted from a different case involving different applicants; — third, the Tribunal selectively ignored and dismissed crucial arguments and evidence without consideration or review. In conclusion, the appellant considers that his right to an effective remedy has been violated by the Tribunal due to its failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review.

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission

(Case T-681/16)

(2016/C 441/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;

—	admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

—	annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);

—	in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).

2.	Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage, error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

---

(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61)

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

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — France v Commission

(Case T-682/16)

(2016/C 441/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016, notified on 13 July 2016, suspending monthly payments to France under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF);

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549). This plea has two limbs. — First limb: the French authorities implemented in full the action plan including clear progress indicators established following consultation with the Commission to which the contested decision refers. — Second limb: the contested decision is based on factors which were not envisaged in the action plan.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

Action brought on 24 September 2016 — PL v Commission

(Case T-689/16)

(2016/C 441/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the confirmatory decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit DG HR.B4 ‘Career and performance management’ not to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 by adopting a decision, already implemented for more than 3 years, to reassign the applicant, in the interest of the service, from the European Union Delegation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (East Jerusalem) to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE) in Brussels with retroactive effect as of 1 January 2013;

—	annul the implicit decision of 20 August 2015 to reject the applicant’s request, made through his legal counsel, to be informed of the measures taken by the Commission to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13;

—	order the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 250 000 as compensation for the material and non-material harm which he has suffered;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea: infringement of Article 266 TFEU in so far as the contested decisions are not compatible with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 April 2015 in Case F-96/13 in relation to its grounds which form the necessary support for the operative part, in the sense that they are indispensable for determining the exact meaning of the ruling in the operative part. — The applicant considers that Article 266 TFEU requires the Commission to ensure that any act replacing the annulled act is not tainted by the same irregularities as those identified in the judgment ordering annulment, which is the position in the present case.

2.

Second plea: abuse of procedure in so far as the contested decisions do not constitute a proper, bona fide and fair implementation of the CST’s judgment ordering annulment and were merely adopted with the sole aim of conferring a veneer of legality on a decision which, although annulled, had already been implemented for more than three years.

3.	Third plea: breach of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Elevolution-Engenharia v Commission

(Case T-691/16)

(2016/C 441/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Elevolution-Engenharia SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	grant the application in its entirety and thereby annul the Commission’s decisions containing the debit notes received by the applicant by letter on 3 August 2016;

—	order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, to be assessed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging lack of competence. It is submitted that the Commission lacks the competence and powers to adopt the acts which are to be annulled.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. The reasoning of the disputed notes is implied or tacit, or clothed in obscurity, and the notes are not consistent with EU law.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringements of the Treaty and rules for its implementation.

Action brought on 27 September 2016 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-692/16)

(2016/C 441/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision and consequently order the ECDC to pay the applicant all emoluments he would have received from 1 May 2012 until 31 December 2014 had the applicant stayed in ECDC’s service, which, pending specification by the ECDC, the applicant provisionally calculates as the sum of EUR 140 000, plus default interest at the statutory rate;

—	order the ECDC to pay him the sum of EUR 13 000 in compensation for non-material harm;

—	order the ECDC to bear its own costs, and to pay his costs, in the proceedings.

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 ECDC breached Article 266 TFEU by incorrectly implementing the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC, and arguing in particular — that, due to the irrevocable change in essential circumstances the ECDC was wrong to give retroactive effect to the contested decision; — that the ECDC breached the principle of proportionality, as the contested decision was neither suitable nor necessary for the achievement of the objective pursued by the annulled 2012 dismissal; — that the ECDC committed a manifest error of assessment in disregarding the recruitment fraud of the head of the ECDC legal service; — that the ECDC breached Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations in dismissing the applicant in reaction to his reporting, in tempore non suspecto shortly before his dismissal, facts which raised the suspicion of financial mismanagement at the ECDC.

2.	Second plea in law, claiming monetary compensation for non-material harm caused by the ECDC’s breach of Article 266 TFEU and by its statement that the applicant has sought to promote nepotism.

Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission

(Case T-693/16 P)

(2016/C 441/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15;

—

in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35; — so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint; — in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005; — order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000; — order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety;

—	order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.

1.

First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file.

2.	Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST.

3.	Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST.

4.	Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons.

Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15,  U (*1) v Commission

(Case T-695/16 P)

(2016/C 441/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings:  U (*1) and European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15,  U (*1) v Commission;

—	as regards the proceedings at first instance, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that the state of proceedings permitted it to give final judgment, dismiss the action as unfounded and order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;

—	as regards the appeal proceedings, order the parties to bear their own costs relating to those proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

1.	First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, and infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, in relation to paragraphs 53 to 56, 60 and 75 to 78 of the judgment under appeal.

2.	Second ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law in the interpretation of Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in relation to paragraphs 31, 57 to 60, and 61 to the first sentence of paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal.

3.	Third ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law and infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in relation to paragraphs 65 and 67 to 79 of the judgment under appeal.

---

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

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB

(Case T-698/16)

(2016/C 441/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the ECB’s decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

—	order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB's earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63)

Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 José Barroso Truta, Marc Forli, Calogero Galante, Bernard Gradel against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice

(Case T-702/16 P)

(2016/C 441/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: José Barroso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-Sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellants

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v CJEU;

and, giving judgment itself,

—	Order the Court of Justice to pay EUR 61 121,08 on behalf of Mr Barroso Truta, EUR 129 440,98 on behalf of Mr Forli, EUR 76 324,29 on behalf of Mr Galante and EUR 99 565,13 on behalf of Mr Gradel, to any fund or insurance policy in the appellants’ names;

—	In the alternative, order the Court of Justice to pay the abovementioned amounts to the appellants, those sums to be paid together with interest calculated at a rate of 3,1 % per annum from the date of the transfer of the appellants’ pension rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions;

—	Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by holding that the action for damages was inadmissible on the ground that the appellants did not observe the pre-litigation procedure, which allegedly should have commenced with the submission of a complaint, followed by a possible action for annulment of the decisions recognising the crediting of pensionable years in the pension scheme of the EU institutions.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the AECC had committed no administrative error when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years, which nevertheless proved to be incomplete or incorrect with regard to contract agents in function group I.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the harm claimed by the appellants was hypothetical.

Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Pebagua v Commission

(Case T-715/16)

(2016/C 441/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (Isla Mayor, Spain) (represented by: A. J. Uceda Sosa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested implementing regulation;

—	in the alternative, annul the inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii in the list adopted by that regulation;

—	order the applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 4).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that, as regards the species Procambarus clarkii, the requirements laid down in Article 4 of Regulation 1143/2014 were not met and a risk assessment under the terms set out in Article 5(1) of that regulation was not carried out.

Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

(Case T-717/16)

(2016/C 441/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) — Application for registration No 14 588 933

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 1195/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinWärme)

(Case T-719/16)

(2016/C 441/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘berlinWärme’ — Application for registration No 14 062 558

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2016 in Case R 618/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.

Action brought on 10 October 2016 — ARFEA v Commission

(Case T-720/16)

(2016/C 441/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Aziende riunite filovie ed autolinee Srl (ARFEA) (Alessandria, Italy) (represented by: M. Chiti and V. Angiolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul Commission Decision of 10 June 2016 on State aid SA.38132 (2015/c) (ex 2014/NN) — Additional PSO compensation for ARFEA, and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings.

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision declares incompatible with the internal market and orders the recovery of the aid alleged to have been granted by the Italian authorities to the applicant, a private company which supplies local public transport services based on concessions and private transport services as a business activity, as compensation for performance of a public service obligation.

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 108(3) TFEU. — The applicant claims in that regard that the measure contested by the Commission does not constitute State aid. In any event, it is not ‘new’ aid, to which the provision cited refers.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107 TFEU. — The applicant claims in that regard that the contested measure constitutes compensation for public service obligations imposed on ARFEA in accordance with final judgments of Italian courts, and not ‘State aid’ within the meaning of the TFEU provision cited.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the application of EU law, of general principles of non-retroactivity of legal rules and of legal certainty, and of principles established in the field concerned by the Court of Justice. — In that regard, the applicant disputes the application of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in the present case, as provided for in the contested decision. The present case, which relates to events which took place in 1997-98, falls under other EU legislation (Regulation (EEC) No 1191/1969).

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of principles concerning the limitation of rights. — The applicant company submits in that regard that it is challenging the recovery decision in respect of the measure in question 18 years after the facts underlying the case.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles established by the case-law of the Court of Justice defining State aid, and principles concerning the procedural autonomy of the Member States. — The applicant company claims in that regard that it intended to demonstrate, in the matter at issue, that the principles established by the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans and Regierumspräsidium Magdeburg were observed. Furthermore, the company submits that the contested decision has encroached upon an area subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of the rules governing State aid in so far as concerns unilaterally imposed public service obligations. — The applicant company claims that the Commission did not take into account the fact that, in the present case, the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation upon it, to be compensated using measures not covered by the concept of State aid.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of principles governing the temporal succession of legal rules. — The applicant company disputes, from a different angle to that put forward in its plea in point 3, that Regulation No 1370/2007 applies to the present case. The company submits that, in the present case, the Commission did not take into account that the Piedmont Region imposed a public service obligation on it, to be compensated by measures not covered by the concept of State aid.

Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

(Case T-724/16 P)

(2016/C 441/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission;

and, giving judgment itself:

—	Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 refusing the requests for assistance;

—	Order the Commission pay the amounts of EUR 22 000 to Mr Falcione and EUR 35 000 to Mr Cocchi, in respect of the damage which they have suffered;

—	Order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellants’ interest in pursuing the proceedings. The appellants, it is claimed, have more than a mere administrative interest in having their appeal upheld.