ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 104
European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 60
3 April 2017

Notice No

Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 104/01

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

1

 

V   Announcements

 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

 

Court of Justice

2017/C 104/02

Case C-604/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of non-retroactivity — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction — Excessive duration of the proceedings)

2

2017/C 104/03

Case C-609/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 31 — Obligation to state reasons)

2

2017/C 104/04

Case C-611/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations)

3

2017/C 104/05

Case C-613/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Obligation to state reasons)

3

2017/C 104/06

Case C-614/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Single and continuous infringement — Obligation to state reasons)

4

2017/C 104/07

Case C-618/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover)

5

2017/C 104/08

Case C-619/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Leniency programme — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

5

2017/C 104/09

Case C-625/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

6

2017/C 104/10

Case C-626/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

6

2017/C 104/11

Case C-636/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca Sanitario, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Proportionality — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

7

2017/C 104/12

Case C-637/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Laufen Austria AG v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

7

2017/C 104/13

Case C-638/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca SARL v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of equal treatment — Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction)

8

2017/C 104/14

Case C-642/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Belgium v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

8

2017/C 104/15

Case C-644/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

9

2017/C 104/16

Case C-421/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Primus SA v Jesús Gutiérrez García (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Unfair terms — Mortgage loan agreements — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Limitation period — Function of the national courts — Res judicata)

9

2017/C 104/17

Case C-560/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Application for subsidiary protection — Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status — Right to be heard — Scope — Right to an interview — Right to call and cross-examine witnesses)

11

2017/C 104/18

Case C-573/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v Mostafa Lounani (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Asylum — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) — Exclusion from being a refugee — Concept of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations — Scope — Member of the leadership of a terrorist organisation — Criminal conviction of participation in the activities of a terrorist group — Individual assessment)

12

2017/C 104/19

Case C-606/14 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl — Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity — Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market)

13

2017/C 104/20

Joined Cases C-247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, Chin Haur Indonesia PT, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Article 18 — Lack of cooperation — Evidence — Body of consistent evidence)

13

2017/C 104/21

Joined Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Article 18 — Lack of cooperation — Evidence — Body of consistent evidence — Contradictory reasoning — Inadequate statement of reasons — Breach of procedural rights)

14

2017/C 104/22

Case C-283/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Income tax — National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State — Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances)

15

2017/C 104/23

Case C-373/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — French Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — On-the-spot controls — Coefficient density of livestock — Counting of animals)

16

2017/C 104/24

Case C-392/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

16

2017/C 104/25

Case C-430/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Care component of disability living allowance — Person insured against the risk of old age who has definitively ceased all occupational activity — Concepts of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit — Exportability)

17

2017/C 104/26

Case C-441/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 3824 90 97 and 2106 90 92 — Product in powder form composed of calcium carbonate (95 %) and modified starch (5 %))

18

2017/C 104/27

Case C-506/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — On-the-spot controls — Coefficient density of livestock — Counting of animals)

18

2017/C 104/28

Case C-562/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Comparative advertising — Directive 2006/114/EC — Article 4 — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 7 — Objective price comparison — Misleading omission — Advertising comparing the prices of goods sold in shops having different sizes or formats — Permissibility — Material information — Degree of communication of information and the medium for communication of that information)

19

2017/C 104/29

Case C-585/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sugar — Production levies — Calculation of the average loss — Calculation of production levies — Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 — Validity)

20

2017/C 104/30

Case C-21/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 131 and 138 — Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply — VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) — Purchaser’s failure to register — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)

21

2017/C 104/31

Case C-144/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal — Portugal) — Município de Palmela v Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procedures for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directives 83/189/EEC and 98/34/EC — Draft technical regulation — Notifying the European Commission — Obligations of Member States — Infringement — Consequences)

21

2017/C 104/32

Case C-283/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Enforcement of a decision in a Member State — Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement — National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement)

22

2017/C 104/33

Case C-45/16 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) contract, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Termination of that contract due to irregularities committed in the performance of another contract concluded with the European Commission — Good faith — Legitimate expectation the contract would not be terminated)

23

2017/C 104/34

Case C-53/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Carsten René Beul v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Functioning of the financial markets — Requirements for the carrying out of the statutory audit of annual and consolidated financial statements of public-interest entities — Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 — Rules on the organisation and selection of statutory auditors and audit firms by public-interest entities — No individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility)

23

2017/C 104/35

Case C-566/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

24

2017/C 104/36

Case C-593/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky

24

2017/C 104/37

Case C-613/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Juhler Holding A/S v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

25

2017/C 104/38

Case C-629/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2016 — CX

26

2017/C 104/39

Case C-642/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

26

2017/C 104/40

Case C-649/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

27

2017/C 104/41

Case C-664/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

27

2017/C 104/42

Case C-670/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

28

2017/C 104/43

Case C-673/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea Constituțională a României (Romania) lodged on 30 December 2016 — Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

29

2017/C 104/44

Case C-681/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Operations Support Group v Orifarm GmbH

30

2017/C 104/45

Case C-683/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

31

2017/C 104/46

Case C-684/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu

32

2017/C 104/47

Case C-2/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

33

2017/C 104/48

Case C-12/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Maria Dicu v Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

33

2017/C 104/49

Case C-16/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 13 January 2017 — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

34

2017/C 104/50

Case C-27/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation A/S

35

2017/C 104/51

Case C-34/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 24 January 2017 — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners

35

2017/C 104/52

Case C-43/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

36

2017/C 104/53

Case C-73/17: Action brought on 9 February 2017 — French Republic v European Parliament

37

 

General Court

2017/C 104/54

Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Ne bis in idem — Res judicata — Proportionality — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights)

39

2017/C 104/55

Case T-191/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council (Common Customs Tariff — Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Objection to existing suspensions — Equivalence of products — Procedure for handling objections)

40

2017/C 104/56

Case T-351/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GATEWIT — Earlier EU figurative mark wit software — Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

40

2017/C 104/57

Case T-493/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA (Seconded national expert — EFSA rules on SNEs — Decision not to extend the secondment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions — Written pleadings supplementing the originating application — Amendments to the heads of claim — Admissibility)

41

2017/C 104/58

Case T-706/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA (Research and technological development — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — ZONeSEC and Inachus projects — Decision refusing participation of the applicant — Action for annulment and liability)

42

2017/C 104/59

Case T-726/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Novar v EUIPO (Non-contractual liability — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — International registration designating the European Union — Decision rejecting the opposition in the absence of proof of the earlier right — Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Revision of the decision — Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Damage consisting in lawyers’ fees — Causal link)

42

2017/C 104/60

Case T-783/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission (Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings — Union industry — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

43

2017/C 104/61

Case T-811/14: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely — Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY — Decision on the appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers — Manifest errors of assessment)

44

2017/C 104/62

Case T-71/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Land Glider — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

44

2017/C 104/63

Case T-145/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission (EAGGF and EAFRD — Area-related measures — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat-rate financial corrections — Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

45

2017/C 104/64

Case T-513/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

46

2017/C 104/65

Case T-516/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

46

2017/C 104/66

Case T-517/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

47

2017/C 104/67

Case T-18/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO — Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

47

2017/C 104/68

Case T-871/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

48

2017/C 104/69

Case T-22/17: Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

49

2017/C 104/70

Case T-23/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Barnett v EESC

50

2017/C 104/71

Case T-31/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

51

2017/C 104/72

Case T-33/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA

51

2017/C 104/73

Case T-37/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council

52

2017/C 104/74

Case T-38/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

53

2017/C 104/75

Case T-39/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

54

2017/C 104/76

Case T-50/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)

55

2017/C 104/77

Case T-60/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

55

2017/C 104/78

Case T-64/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

56

2017/C 104/79

Case T-67/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)

57

2017/C 104/80

Case T-68/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)

57

2017/C 104/81

Case T-69/17: Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

58

2017/C 104/82

Case T-70/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — TenneT Holding v. EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

59

2017/C 104/83

Case T-72/17: Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

59

2017/C 104/84

Case T-78/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)

60

2017/C 104/85

Case T-86/17: Action brought on 10 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

61

2017/C 104/86

Case T-87/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)

62

EN

 

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/1

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

(2017/C 104/01)

Last publication

OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

Past publications

OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

These texts are available on:

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

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-604/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction - Excessive duration of the proceedings))

(2017/C 104/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: H. Janssen and T. Kapp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-609/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 31 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Duravit AG, Duravit SA and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-611/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 104/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium, Hansa Austria GmbH (represented by: S. Cappellari, H.-J. Hellmann and C. Malz, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium and Hansa Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others

(Case C-613/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG, Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH, Koninklijke Sphinx BV, Allia SAS, Produits Céramiques de Touraine SA, Pozzi Ginori SpA, Sanitec Europe Oy (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, P. Lindfelt, advokat, and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457);

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3.

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

4.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union as regards the part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457) set aside by the present judgment;

5.

Reserves the costs.

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission

(Case C-614/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Single and continuous infringement - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV, Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder and S. Heinz, Rechtsanwälte, and by B. Fischer, advocate, instructed by J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GesmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA/NV and Hüppe BV to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA v European Commission

(Case C-618/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover))

(2017/C 104/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission

(Case C-619/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Leniency programme - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch AG v European Commission

(Case C-625/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and T. Kreifels, Rechtsanwälte, assisted by S. Thomas, Professor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Villeroy & Boch AG to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-626/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (represented by: A. Reidlinger and J. Weichbrodt, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca Sanitario, SA v European Commission

(Case C-636/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Proportionality - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Roca Sanitario, SA (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez and E. Navarro Varona, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Roca Sanitario SA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Laufen Austria AG v European Commission

(Case C-637/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laufen Austria AG (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Laufen Austria v Commission (T-411/10, EU:T:2013:443);

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the claim made by Laufen Austria AG for reduction of the fine imposed;

3.

Reserves the costs.

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Roca SARL v European Commission

(Case C-638/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of equal treatment - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Roca SARL (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Roca SARL to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-642/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Belgium (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and N. Lorjé, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Villeroy & Boch Belgium SA to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch v European Commission

(Case C-644/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Villeroy & Boch SAS to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Primus SA v Jesús Gutiérrez García

(Case C-421/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Unfair terms - Mortgage loan agreements - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Limitation period - Function of the national courts - Res judicata))

(2017/C 104/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Primus SA

Defendant: Jesús Gutiérrez García

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as the Fourth Transitional Provision of Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent) of 14 May 2013, which, as regards mortgage enforcement proceedings which were instituted before the date of entry into force of the law of which that provision forms part and which were not concluded at that date, imposes a time limit of one month on consumers, calculated from the day following the publication of that law, within which to object to enforcement on the basis of the alleged unfairness of contractual terms.

2.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Article 207 of Ley 1/2000, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 on the Civil Procedure Code), of 7 January 2000, as amended by Ley 1/2013, de medidas para reforzar la protección a los deudores hipotecarios, reestructuración de deuda y alquiler social (Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent), of 14 May 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 7/2013, de medidas urgentes de naturaleza tributaria, presupuestaria y de fomento de la investigación, el desarrollo y la innovación (Decree-Law 7/2013 on urgent fiscal and budgetary measures and promoting research, development and innovation), of 28 June 2013, then by Real Decreto-Ley 11/2014, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal (Decree-Law 11/2014 on urgent measures in the area of bankruptcy), of 5 September 2014, which prohibits national courts from examining of their own motion the unfairness of contractual terms where a ruling has already been given on the lawfulness of the terms of the contract, taken as a whole, with regard to that directive in a decision which has become res judicata.

By contrast, where there are one or more contractual terms the potential unfair nature of which has not been examined during an earlier judicial review of the contract in dispute which has been closed by a decision which has become res judicata, Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, before which a consumer has properly lodged an objection, is required to assess the potential unfairness of those terms, whether at the request of the parties or of its own motion where it is in possession of the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose.

3.

Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the examination of the potential unfairness of a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer requires it to be determined whether that term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under a contract to the detriment of the consumer. That examination must be carried out in the light of national rules which, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, are applicable, the means which the consumer has at his disposal under national law to bring an end to the use of that type of term, the nature of the goods or services covered by the contract at issue and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the contract;

—

where the national court considers that a contractual term relating to the calculation of ordinary interest, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that directive, it is required to examine whether that term is unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the directive. In the context of that examination, it is the duty of the referring court, inter alia, to compare the method of calculation of the rate of ordinary interest laid down in that term and the actual sum resulting from that rate with the methods of calculation generally used, the statutory interest rate and the interest rates applied on the market at the date of conclusion of the agreement at issue in the main proceedings for a loan of a comparable sum and term to those of the loan agreement under consideration; and

—

as regards the assessment by a national court of the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, it is for the referring court to examine whether the right of the seller or supplier to call in the totality of the loan is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an obligation which is of essential importance in the context of the contractual relationship in question, whether that right is provided for in cases in which such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan, whether that right derogates from the applicable common law rules, where specific contractual provisions are lacking, and whether national law provides for adequate and effective means enabling the consumer subject to such a term to remedy the effects of the loan being called in.

4.

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation in the case-law of a provision of national law governing accelerated repayment clauses in loan agreements, such as Article 693(2) of Law 1/2000, as amended by Decree-Law 7/2013, which prohibits the national court which has found such a contractual term to be unfair from declaring that term null and void and removing it where the seller or supplier did not in fact apply it, but complied with the requirements laid down in that provision of national law.

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-560/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Application for subsidiary protection - Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status - Right to be heard - Scope - Right to an interview - Right to call and cross-examine witnesses))

(2017/C 104/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M

Defendants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

The right to be heard, as applicable in the context of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, does not require, as a rule, that, where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provides for two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, the applicant for subsidiary protection is to have the right to an interview relating to his application and the right to call or cross-examine witnesses when that interview takes place.

An interview must nonetheless be arranged where specific circumstances, relating to the elements available to the competent authority or to the personal or general circumstances in which the application for subsidiary protection has been made, render it necessary in order to examine that application with full knowledge of the facts, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/12

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v Mostafa Lounani

(Case C-573/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) - Exclusion from being a refugee - Concept of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ - Scope - Member of the leadership of a terrorist organisation - Criminal conviction of participation in the activities of a terrorist group - Individual assessment))

(2017/C 104/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Defendant: Mostafa Lounani

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 12(2)(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the ground for exclusion of refugee status specified in that provision to be held to be established that an applicant for international protection should have been convicted of one of the terrorist offences referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism.

2.

Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that acts constituting participation in the activities of a terrorist group, such as those of which the defendant in the main proceedings was convicted, may justify exclusion of refugee status, even though it is not established that the person concerned committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. For the purposes of the individual assessment of the facts that may be grounds for a finding that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, has instigated such acts or has otherwise participated in such acts, the fact that that person was convicted, by the courts of a Member State, on a charge of participation in the activities of a terrorist group is of particular importance, as is a finding that that person was a member of the leadership of that group, and there is no need to establish that that person himself or herself instigated a terrorist act or otherwise participated in it.

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/13

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission

(Case C-606/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl - Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity - Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market))

(2017/C 104/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Portovesme Srl (represented by: G. Dore, M. Liberati, A. Vinci and F. Ciulli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2.

Portovesme Srl shall pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.03.2015

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, Chin Haur Indonesia PT, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Joined Cases C-247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Lack of cooperation - Evidence - Body of consistent evidence))

(2017/C 104/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-247/15 P)

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

(Case C-253/15 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

(Case C-259/15 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union, (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia PT (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 March 2015, Chin Haur Indonesia v Council, (T-412/13, EU:T:2015:163);

2.

Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Chin Haur Indonesia PT before the General Court of the European Union in Case T-412/13;

3.

Orders Chin Haur Indonesia PT to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Maxcom Ltd and the Council of the European Union in both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-412/13 and the appeal proceedings;

4.

Orders Chin Haur Indonesia PT to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-253/15 P;

5.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-247/15 P and C-259/15 P and the proceedings at first instance in Case T-412/13.

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/14

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Joined Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Lack of cooperation - Evidence - Body of consistent evidence - Contradictory reasoning - Inadequate statement of reasons - Breach of procedural rights))

(2017/C 104/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-248/15 P)

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

(Case C-254/15 P)

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

(Case C-260/15 P)

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P;

2.

Orders Maxcom Ltd, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by City Cycle Industries in relation to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-413/13 and the appeal proceedings.

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/15

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-283/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Income tax - National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State - Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances))

(2017/C 104/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, the tax legislation of which permits the deduction of ‘negative income’ relating to a dwelling, from refusing the benefit of that deduction to a self-employed non-resident where that person receives, within that Member State, 60 % of his total income and does not receive, within the Member State where his dwelling is located, income that enables him to qualify for an equivalent right to deduct.

2.

The injunction imposed by the answer to the first question concerns any Member State of activity within which a self-employed person receives income enabling him to claim there an equivalent right of deduction, in proportion to the share of that income received within each Member State of activity. In that regard, a ‘Member State of activity’ is any Member State that has the power to tax such income from the activities of a non-resident as is received within its territory, irrespective of where the activities are actually performed.

3.

The fact that the non-resident taxpayer concerned receives part of his taxable income not within a Member State, but within a non-Member State, is of no relevance to the answer to the second question.

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/16

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — French Republic v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-373/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))

(2017/C 104/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented initially by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, and subsequently by G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015, France v Commission (T-259/13, not published, EU:T:2015:250);

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3.

Reserves the costs.

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/16

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-392/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))

(2017/C 104/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

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

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

2.

Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley

(Case C-430/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Care component of disability living allowance - Person insured against the risk of old age who has definitively ceased all occupational activity - Concepts of ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘invalidity benefit’ - Exportability))

(2017/C 104/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant: Tolley

Operative part of the judgment

1.

A benefit such as the care component of disability living allowance is a sickness benefit for the purposes of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.

2.

Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person has acquired rights to an old-age pension by virtue of the contributions paid during a given period to the social security scheme of a Member State does not preclude the legislation of that Member State from subsequently ceasing to be applicable to that person. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it and of the provisions of the applicable national law, when that legislation ceased to be applicable to that person.

3.

Article 22(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as preventing legislation of the competent State from making entitlement to an allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings subject to a condition as to residence and presence on the territory of that Member State.

Article 22(1)(b) and Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 307/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings retains the right to receive the benefits referred to in Article 22(1)(b) after transferring his residence to a Member State other than the competent State, provided that he has obtained authorisation for that purpose.

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/18

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen

(Case C-441/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 3824 90 97 and 2106 90 92 - Product in powder form composed of calcium carbonate (95 %) and modified starch (5 %)))

(2017/C 104/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Madaus GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 must be interpreted to the effect that a product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, added modified starch, and with a starch content of less than 5 % by weight, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature.

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/18

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-506/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))

(2017/C 104/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU

(Case C-562/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Comparative advertising - Directive 2006/114/EC - Article 4 - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 7 - Objective price comparison - Misleading omission - Advertising comparing the prices of goods sold in shops having different sizes or formats - Permissibility - Material information - Degree of communication of information and the medium for communication of that information))

(2017/C 104/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS

Respondent: ITM Alimentaire International SASU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) to (3) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that advertising, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which compares the prices of products sold in shops having different sizes or formats, where those shops are part of retail chains each of which includes a range of shops having different sizes or formats and where the advertiser compares the prices charged in shops having larger sizes or formats in its retail chain with those displayed in shops having smaller sizes or formats in the retail chains of competitors, is liable to be unlawful, within the meaning of Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114, unless consumers are informed clearly and in the advertisement itself that the comparison was made between the prices charged in shops in the advertiser’s retail chain having larger sizes or formats and those indicated in the shops of competing retail chains having smaller sizes or formats.

It is for the referring court, in order to assess the lawfulness of such advertising, to ascertain whether, in the case in the main proceedings, in the light of the circumstances of the present case, the advertising at issue satisfies the objective comparison requirement and/or is misleading, first, by taking into consideration the average consumer of the products in question who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect and, secondly, by taking into account the information contained in that advertising, in particular the information concerning the shops in the advertiser’s retail chain and those in the retail chains of competitors whose prices have been compared and, more generally, all of the elements in that advertising.

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge

(Case C-585/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sugar - Production levies - Calculation of the average loss - Calculation of production levies - Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 - Validity))

(2017/C 104/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide the total amount of the actual expenditure for export refunds for products which come under that provision by the total amount of the quantities of those products which were exported, regardless of whether or not refunds have in fact been paid for the latter.

2.

Article 33(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of the overall calculation of the production levies, it is necessary to take into account the average loss calculated by dividing the total amount of the actual expenditure for export refunds for products which come under that provision by the total amount of the quantities exported for those products, regardless of whether or not refunds have in fact been paid for the latter.

3.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/2001 marketing year are invalid.

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/21

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-21/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 131 and 138 - Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply - VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) - Purchaser’s failure to register - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))

(2017/C 104/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination and who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the Value Added Tax Information Exchange System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of VAT and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/21

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal — Portugal) — Município de Palmela v Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

(Case C-144/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directives 83/189/EEC and 98/34/EC - Draft technical regulation - Notifying the European Commission - Obligations of Member States - Infringement - Consequences))

(2017/C 104/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Palmela

Defendant: Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica (ASAE) — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC of the Council of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC 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 and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the penalty of unenforceability of a technical regulation which has not been notified, such as Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulamento que estabelece as condições de segurança a observar na localização, implantação, conceção e organização funcional dos espaços de jogo e recreio, respetivamente, equipamento e superfícies de impacto (Regulation on the mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces), annexed to Decreto-Lei No 379/97 (Decree-Law No 379/97), of 27 December 1997, as amended by Decreto-Lei No 119/2009 (Decree-Law No 119/2009), of 19 May 2009, applies only to that technical regulation and not to the entire legislative text in which it is contained.

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/22

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S.

(Case C-283/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Enforcement of a decision in a Member State - Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement - National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement))

(2017/C 104/32)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.S.

Defendant: P.S.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Chapter IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in particular Article 41(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement;

2.

Member States are required to give full effect to the right laid down in Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 by amending, where appropriate, their rules of procedure. In any event, it is for the national court to apply Article 41(1), if necessary refusing to apply any conflicting provision of national law and, as a consequence, to allow a maintenance creditor to submit her application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement, even if national law does not make provision for such an application.

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/23

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v Commission

(Case C-45/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) contract’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Termination of that contract due to irregularities committed in the performance of another contract concluded with the European Commission - Good faith - Legitimate expectation the contract would not be terminated))

(2017/C 104/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2.

d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis is ordered to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.03.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/23

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Carsten René Beul v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-53/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Functioning of the financial markets - Requirements for the carrying out of the statutory audit of annual and consolidated financial statements of public-interest entities - Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 - Rules on the organisation and selection of statutory auditors and audit firms by public-interest entities - No individual concern - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 104/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Carsten René Beul (represented by: H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and P. Schonard, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and R. Wiemann, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2.

Carsten René Beul is ordered to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-566/16)

(2017/C 104/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dávid Vámos

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Question referred

Is national legislation pursuant to with the tax authority may, when carrying out an ex post tax inspection, preclude the possibility of opting for the personal exemption, on the basis that the taxable person only has that possibility at the time of stating when his taxable activity commences, contrary to EU law?

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Alexander Holiczky

(Case C-593/16)

(2017/C 104/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Defendant: Alexander Holiczky

By order of 7 February 2017, this case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Juhler Holding A/S v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-613/16)

(2017/C 104/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Juhler Holding A/S

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Questions referred

1.

Does Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, (now Article 49 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which denies relief from capital gains tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company which, within a group of undertakings actively trading in the Member State in which the parent company is established, is permanently spun off as a holding company,

to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

(1)

there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

(2)

the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

(3)

the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident holding companies are granted relief from capital gains tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

2.

Does Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 1(2), of Directive 90/435/EEC (1) preclude national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which denies relief from capital gains tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company which, within a group of undertakings actively trading in the Member State in which the parent company is established, is permanently spun off as a holding company,

to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

(1)

there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

(2)

the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

(3)

the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident holding companies are granted relief from capital gains tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

(1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2016 — CX

(Case C-629/16)

(2017/C 104/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: CX

Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

Question referred

Does EU law, and in particular the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (64/733/EEC), Journal Officiel 1964, 217, p. 3687/64, the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement, Journal Officiel 1972, L 293, p. 3, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC), OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1, preclude national legislation under which goods transport undertakings established in the Republic of Turkey may engage in cross-border commercial carriage of goods to or through the territory of the Republic of Austria only if they have, in respect of the motor vehicles concerned, passes issued as part of a quota established between Austria and Turkey pursuant to a bilateral agreement, or if they are granted authorisation for the individual carriage of goods, in which case there must be a significant public interest in the individual carriage of goods and the applicant must demonstrate that the journey cannot be avoided by organisational measures or by the choice of a different means of transport?

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-642/16)

(2017/C 104/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark can oppose further commercialisation of a medical device imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging, to which the importer has affixed an additional external label, unless

—

it is established that reliance on trade-mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

—

it is shown that the new labelling cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

—

the packaging states clearly who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

—

the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

—

the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is placed on the market, and, on demand, provides him with a specimen of that product.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

(Case C-649/16)

(2017/C 104/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, Europa SC ZV II a.s., Europa SC LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., Europa SC BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o.

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., City of Banská Bystrica

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the holders of shares in an insolvent company — as is the case of the first and second applicants — and by project companies in a business relationship with the insolvent company — as is the case of the third to seventh applicants — which is founded on a claim in tort for damages against members of a creditors’ committee in respect of voting impropriety regarding a restructuring plan in connection with insolvency proceedings concerns insolvency within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and is for that reason excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation?

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

(Case C-664/16)

(2017/C 104/41)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lucrețiu Hadrian Vădan

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Alba

Questions referred

1.

On a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 (1) in general, and Articles 167, 168, 178, 179 and 273 in particular, and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, may a taxable person who satisfies the substantive requirements for the deduction of VAT exercise his right to deduct in a situation where, in a particular context such as that of the dispute in the main proceedings, he is unable to provide evidence, by way of invoices, of input tax for the supply of goods and provision of services?

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, on a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, is an indirect assessment method (assessment by means of a court-commissioned expert report), employed by an independent expert and based on the amount of work/labour involved in the construction of buildings as stated in the report, an acceptable and appropriate measure for determining the extent of the right to deduct in a situation where the supply of goods (building material) and the provision of services (labour relating to the construction of buildings) originate from taxable persons liable to VAT?

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-670/16)

(2017/C 104/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tsegezab Mengesteab

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1.

May an asylum applicant claim a transfer of responsibility to the requesting Member State by reason of the expiry of the period for making the take charge request (third subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1))?

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: may an asylum applicant claim a transfer of responsibility even if the requested Member State is still willing to take charge of him?

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: can it be inferred from the express consent or the deemed consent (Article 22(7) of Regulation No 604/2013) of the requested Member State that the requested Member State is still willing to take charge of the asylum applicant?

4.

Can the two-month period provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 end after the expiry of the three-month period provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 if the requesting Member State allows more than one month to pass after the beginning of the three-month period before it makes a request to the Eurodac database?

5.

Is an application for international protection deemed to have been lodged for the purposes of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 when a certificate of registration as an asylum seeker is first issued or only when a formal asylum application is recorded? In particular:

(a)

Is the certificate of registration as an asylum seeker a form or a report within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013?

(b)

Is the competent authority within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 the authority responsible for receiving the form or for preparing the report or the authority responsible for the decision on the asylum application?

(c)

Has a report prepared by the authorities reached the competent authority even if that authority was informed of the main content of the form or the report, or must the original or a copy of the report be communicated to it for that purpose?

6.

Can delays between the first request for asylum or the first issue of a certificate of registration as an asylum seeker and the submission of a take charge request lead to a transfer of responsibility to the requesting Member State by analogous application of the third subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 or require the requesting Member State to exercise its right to assume responsibility pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013?

7.

If Question 6 is to be answered in the affirmative in respect of either alternative: from what time can there be considered to be an unreasonable delay in submitting a take charge request?

8.

Does a take charge request in which the requesting Member State indicates only the date of entry into the requesting Member State and the date of submission of the formal asylum application, but not also the date of the first request for asylum or the date of first issue of a certificate of registration as an asylum seeker, comply with the time limit provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, or is such a request ‘ineffective’?

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea Constituțională a României (Romania) lodged on 30 December 2016 — Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-673/16)

(2017/C 104/43)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea Constituțională a României

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept

Defendants: Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Questions referred

1.

Does the term ‘spouse’ in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], (1) in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, include the same-sex spouse, from a State which is not a Member State of the European Union, of a citizen of the European Union to whom that citizen is lawfully married under the law of a Member State other than the host Member State?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, require the host Member State to confer the right of residence in its territory or for a period of longer than three months on the same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union?

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the same-sex spouse, from a State which is not a Member State of the European Union, of a European Union citizen, to whom the citizen concerned is lawfully married under the law of a Member State other than the host Member State, be classified as ‘any other family member’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/[EC] or ‘partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], with the corresponding obligation for the host Member State to facilitate entry and residence for him, even though the host State does not recognise marriages between members of the same sex or provide for an alternative form of legal recognition, such as registered partnerships?

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, do Articles 3(2) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, require the Member State to confer the right of residence in its territory or for a period of longer than three months on the same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union?

(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)

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Operations Support Group v Orifarm GmbH

(Case C-681/16)

(2017/C 104/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Operations Support Group

Defendant: Orifarm GmbH

Questions referred

1.

Can the holder of a supplementary protection certificate that was issued to it for the Federal Republic of Germany rely on the specific mechanism to prevent the importation of products into the Federal Republic of Germany from the accession States the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania … and Croatia (Annex IV to the 2003 Act of Accession, OJ 2003 L 236, p. 797, as amended in OJ 2004 L 126, p. 4, for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic; Part I of Annex V to the 2005 Act of Accession, OJ 2005 L 157, p. 268, for Romania and Bulgaria; Annex IV to the 2011 Act of Accession, OJ 2012 L 112, p. 60, for Croatia) if the supplementary protection certificate was applied for in the Federal Republic of Germany at a point in time at which the laws for obtaining such a supplementary protection certificate already existed in the respective accession States but could not be applied for by, or issued to, the holder of the supplementary protection certificate issued for the Federal Republic of Germany because the basic patent required for the issuing of the supplementary protection certificate did not exist in the accession State?

2.

Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 if it was merely at the time of the filing of the application for the basic patent issued for the Federal Republic of Germany that such protection through a basic patent could not be obtained in the accession State but, by the time of publication of the application on which the basic patent issued for the Federal Republic of Germany was based, it could be so obtained?

3.

Can the holder of a supplementary protection certificate that was issued to it for the Federal Republic of Germany rely on the specific mechanism to prevent the importation of products into the Federal Republic of Germany from the accession States the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania … and Croatia if those products are imported after the expiry of the term of the supplementary protection certificate stipulated in the original decision to grant the patent but before the expiry of the six-month extension of the term of the supplementary protection certificate that was granted to it on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1)?

4.

Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 3, in the case of Croatia, that, on account of the accession of Croatia in 2013, the specific mechanism did not come into force until after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 on 26 January 2007 — unlike in the other Member States which acceded prior to 26 January 2007, namely the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria [and] Romania …?

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004; OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-683/16)

(2017/C 104/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände e.V.

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as precluding measures of a Member State in respect of waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction which are necessary in order to comply with the obligations of a Member State under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (2) which have effects on the fishing vessels of other Member States, and by which professional sea fishing by means of fishing equipment that touches the seabed, as well as gillnets (‘trammel and gillnets’), is comprehensively prohibited in Natura 2000 sites?

In particular:

(a)

Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the fishing techniques listed in the first question referred fall within the concept of ‘conservation measures’?

(b)

Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that fishing vessels of another Member State which sail under the flag of the Federal Republic of Germany also fall within the concept of ‘fishing vessels of other Member States’?

(c)

Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as meaning that such measures adopted by a Member State which merely promote the objectives listed in that Union legislation also fall within the concept of ‘meet[ing] the objectives of the relevant Union legislation’?

2.

Is Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC to be interpreted as precluding measures of a Member State in respect of waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction which are necessary in order to comply with its obligations under Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability (3) with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage?

3.

Insofar as Question 1 and Question 2 are to be answered, either individually or cumulatively, in the negative:

Does the exclusive competence of the European Union in the field of conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy pursuant to Article 3(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the adoption of the aforementioned measures by the Member State?

(1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

(3)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu

(Case C-684/16)

(2017/C 104/46)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

Questions referred

1.

Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period?

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons?

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/33

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

(Case C-2/17)

(2017/C 104/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Other parties: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, Jesús Crespo Rey

Questions referred

1.

Must the expression ‘the contribution basis in Spain which is closest in time to the reference periods’, referred to in Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be interpreted as excluding those contribution bases arising from the application of Spanish domestic legislation (1) under which a migrant worker who has returned to Spain and whose actual final Spanish contributions are higher than the minimum bases may conclude an agreement maintaining the contributions in accordance only with the minimum bases, whereas, if he were a non-migrant worker, he could have concluded such an agreement on higher bases?

2.

In the event of an affirmative answer to the previous question, and in accordance with Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, do taking the last actual contributions made in Spain, duly updated, and regarding the contribution period under the agreement maintaining contributions as a neutral period or interval constitute remedies appropriate for indemnifying the damage done to the migrant worker?

(1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/33

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Maria Dicu v Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

(Case C-12/17)

(2017/C 104/48)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Dicu

Defendants: Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, in determining the duration of a worker’s annual leave, does not consider the period of parental leave for a child under two a period of service completed?

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/34

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 13 January 2017 — TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-16/17)

(2017/C 104/49)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TGE Gas Engineering GmbH — Sucursal em Portugal

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

Must Articles 44, 45, 132(1)(f), 167, 168, 169, 178, 179 and 192a, 193, 194 and 196 of the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112), (1) Articles 10 and 11 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (2) and the principle of neutrality be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the Portuguese tax authorities from refusing the right to deduction of VAT by a branch of a German company, in circumstances where:

—

the German company obtained a tax identification number in Portugal to carry out an isolated act, namely ‘acquisition of shares’, corresponding to a non-resident entity without a permanent establishment;

—

subsequently, the branch of that German company was registered in Portugal and was assigned its own tax number, as a permanent establishment of that company;

—

later, the German company, using the first identification number, entered into a contract with another company to establish an economic interest group (ACE) to carry out a works contract in Portugal;

—

subsequently, the branch, using its own tax number, entered into a subcontract with the ACE, setting out the reciprocal services between the branch and the ACE and agreeing that the latter would invoice the subcontractors, in the agreed proportions, for the costs which it incurred;

—

the ACE indicated the branch’s tax identification number in the debit notes it issued to invoice costs to that branch, and charged VAT;

—

the branch deducted the VAT charged in the debit notes;

—

the transactions of the ACE (by way of subcontracting) consist of the transactions of the branch and of the other company forming part of the ACE, these latter having invoiced to the ACE the entire revenue that the ACE invoiced to the developer?

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

OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax

OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

(Case C-27/17)

(2017/C 104/50)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

Questions referred

1.

In the circumstances of the present case, is the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be understood as meaning the place of conclusion of the defendants’ unlawful agreement infringing Article 82(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 102(c) TFEU), or the place of commission of acts by which the financial benefit obtained from that agreement was exploited, by means of predatory pricing (cross-subsidisation) when competing with the applicant in the same relevant markets?

2.

In the present case, can the damage (loss of income) suffered by the applicant on account of the specified unlawful acts of the defendants be regarded as damage for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation?

3.

Are the operations of the branch of Air Baltic Corporation in the Republic of Lithuania, in the circumstances of the present case, to be regarded as operations of a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) of the Brussels I Regulation?

(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).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 24 January 2017 — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-34/17)

(2017/C 104/51)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eamonn Donnellan

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Questions referred

Is the High Court of Ireland precluded by Article 14(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/24/EU (1) when determining the enforceability in Ireland of a ‘uniform instrument permitting enforcement’ issued on 14th November, 2012 by the customs office of Patras for administrative penalties and fines in the sum of EUR 1 097 505,00 imposed on 15th July, 2009 for alleged smuggling on 26th July, 2002[, which was increased to EUR 1 507 971,88 by virtue of interest and penalties] from:

(i)

applying the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within a reasonable time for a citizen of Ireland and of the European Union in relation to the enforcement request [(see Article 47 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR which correspond with rights for citizens under Articles 34, 38 and 40.3 of the Irish Constitution), in circumstances where the procedure involved was only first explained to Mr. D in a ‘non-official translation’ into English (an official language of Ireland where Mr. D has always resided) in a letter dated 29 December 2015 from the Ministry of Finance of the Hellenic Republic at Piraeus to the Irish Revenue and the solicitors in Ireland for Mr. D];

(ii)

taking account of the objectives of Directive 2010/24/EU to provide mutual assistance (recital 20 to Directive 2010/24) and to abide by the obligation to provide wider assistance ensuing from the ECHR (recital 17 of Directive 2010/24) such as the right to an effective remedy for citizens under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 13 of the ECHR;

(iii)

considering the full effectiveness of community law for its citizens [and particularly paragraph 63 of [the judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor, C-233/08, EU:C:2010:11].

(1)  Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ 2010, L 84, p. 1).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/36

Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-43/17 P)

(2017/C 104/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 in so far as it dismisses the action brought by the appellant and orders him to pay the costs of the proceedings;

—

adjudicate on the action;

—

order the defendants to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant disputes the General Court’s having declared itself to have jurisdiction in relation only to a dispute based on the latest fixed-term contract signed by the appellant.

He also disputes, even supposing the General Court’s reasoning in that regard were correct, quod non, the fact that the General Court did not rule on several of his requests based on the termination of the contractual relationship at issue and thus on the latest fixed-term contract. The illegality of the order under appeal is apparent from the conciseness of the reasoning, which is so succinct that it does not make it possible to understand how the General Court could, without analysing the merits of the case, conclude that it had no jurisdiction, with the exception of the dispute relating to the latest fixed term contract, solely on the basis of the existence of an arbitration clause even though the appellant disputed the validity and legality of such a clause.

The appellant also disputes the failure to take into account his entire argument as to the existence of wrongful conduct on the part of the institutions relating to the lack of legal framework offering the applicant and all the personnel of rule of law missions established by the Union guarantees that their most fundamental social rights will be respected, including the right of effective access to a court and right to a fair trial.

In support of his appeal, the appellant consequently invokes the General Court’s infringement:

—

of applicable EU law for the determination of the law applicable to contractual disputes;

—

of provisions of Belgian employment law;

—

of minimum requirements on fixed-term work applicable at Community level;

—

of the rights enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

—

of the obligation to state reasons;

—

of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/37

Action brought on 9 February 2017 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-73/17)

(2017/C 104/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—

annul the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)11-30), in so far as it makes provision for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget agreed by the Conciliation Committee; the agenda of the meeting of Thursday 1 December 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)12-01), in so far as it makes provision for a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget; the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document TS-0475/2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0475 in its provisional version), and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget had been definitively adopted;

—

maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of the judgement;

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

By its action, the French Government requests the annulment of four acts adopted by the European Parliament in the context of the exercise of its budgetary powers, at the additional plenary session which took place on 30 November and 1 December 2016 in Brussels.

2.

The first and second acts annulment of which is sought by the French Government are agendas of meetings of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016and Thursday 1 December 2016, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2017 and a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text on the draft general budget.

3.

The third contested act is the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget.

4.

Finally, the French Government requests the annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Thursday 1 December 2016, it concerns the declaration of the President of the European Parliament followed by the latter’s signature of the general budget, which took place following the vote on the legislative resolution on the joint text on the draft general budget.

5.

By its single plea in law, the French Government considers that the four contested acts must be annulled on the ground that they infringe Protocol No 6 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol No 3 annexed to the ECSC Treaty, which relate to the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union.

6.

It follows both from the protocols on the seat of the institutions and the case-law of the Court that the European Parliament may not exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by Article 314 TFEU during additional plenary sessions held in Brussels, but must exercise them during ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.

7.

However, in so far as the lawfulness of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament is disputed, not as a result of its purpose or contents, but solely because that act should have been adopted during an ordinary plenary session in Strasbourg, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service together with important considerations of legal certainty justify, according to the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.

General Court

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/39

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council

(Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Ne bis in idem - Res judicata - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Fundamental rights))

(2017/C 104/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran) and 10 other parties (represented by: F. Randolph QC, P. Pantelis, Solicitor, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant in Case T-87/17: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, in Case T-14/14, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants; and, in Case T-87/14, (i) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, for a declaration that Decision 2013/497 and Regulation No 971/2013 are inapplicable, and (ii) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 316, p. 46), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 316, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the actions;

2.

Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex 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 71, 8.3.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/40

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council

(Case T-191/14) (1)

((Common Customs Tariff - Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products - Objection to existing suspensions - Equivalence of products - Procedure for handling objections))

(2017/C 104/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and M. Clausen, and subsequently by A. Caieros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 2900 80, 3811 2900 10 and 3811 9000 30.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its 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 151, 19.5.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/40

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)

(Case T-351/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GATEWIT - Earlier EU figurative mark wit software - Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha and A. Bertrand, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista and C. Tomás Pedro, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1059/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel and Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action.

2.

Orders Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the purposes of the present proceedings and by Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/41

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA

(Case T-493/14) (1)

((Seconded national expert - EFSA rules on SNEs - Decision not to extend the secondment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions - Written pleadings supplementing the originating application - Amendments to the heads of claim - Admissibility))

(2017/C 104/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant): European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU challenging the decisions of EFSA, first, dismissing the applicant’s request to extend her secondment as a national expert at EFSA and, second, refusing her request for access to documents held by EFSA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2.

Orders Ingrid Alice Mayer to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/42

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

(Case T-706/14) (1)

((Research and technological development - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - ZONeSEC and Inachus projects - Decision refusing participation of the applicant - Action for annulment and liability))

(2017/C 104/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas, lawyer)

Re:

First, application based on Article 264 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the REA of 24 July 2014 [ARES (2014) 2461172], terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its exclusion from participation in the said projects and from the communication of certain information concerning the applicant following that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU to pay the costs in the present proceedings;

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the interim measures.

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/42

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Novar v EUIPO

(Case T-726/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - International registration designating the European Union - Decision rejecting the opposition in the absence of proof of the earlier right - Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Revision of the decision - Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Damage consisting in lawyers’ fees - Causal link))

(2017/C 104/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for material damage which the applicant allegedly sustained on account of lawyers’ fees that it incurred in an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division allegedly adopted in breach of Rule 19(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and of general legal principles.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Novar GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) each to bear their own costs.

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/43

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission

(Case T-783/14) (1)

((Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings - Union industry - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

(2017/C 104/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision, contained in a letter of 15 September 2014 addressed to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, bearing the reference TRADE/H4 (2014) 3328168, on the downward adjustment of the minimum import price for imports of photovoltaic modules and cells manufactured by Chinese exporting producers subject to a price undertaking with effect from 1 October 2014 for the last quarter of 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/44

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

(Case T-811/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely - Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2017/C 104/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Technopharma and Unilever.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV;

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever;

3.

Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever.

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/44

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)

(Case T-71/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Land Glider - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama, Japan) (A. Franke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan Jidosha.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4);

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd;

3.

Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to bear its own costs.

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/45

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-145/15) (1)

((EAGGF and EAFRD - Area-related measures - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial corrections - Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality))

(2017/C 104/63)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by: R.-H Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, D. Bulancea, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, and subsequently by: R. Radu, V. Angelescu, R. Mangu, N. Horumbă, E. Mierlea and T. Crainic, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns Romania;

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Romania.

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/46

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map)

(Case T-513/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Map as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1);

2.

Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/46

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)

(Case T-516/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Types - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1974/2014-1);

2.

Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/47

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Sales)

(Case T-517/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Sales - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Sales as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1972/2014-1);

2.

Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/47

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO)

(Case T-18/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO - Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy) (represented by: V. Fiorillo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1764/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Etike’ International and DMC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders DMC Srl to pay the costs.

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/48

Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

(Case T-871/16)

(2017/C 104/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries, lawyer)

Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;

—

order the defendant to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court referred to in the application, within three months from the date of the judgment;

—

order the defendant to bear 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 manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s proposal.

—

The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the award criteria relevance, impact and quality was deficient.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment

—

The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant drew an inappropriate distinction between its proposal relating to emission abatement technologies and similar proposals by its competitors which have been selected for funding.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/49

Action brought on 16 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-22/17)

(2017/C 104/69)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), which excludes from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 1 999 810,30 in relation to expenditure declared by Portugal on the measure ‘Rural Development EAFRD Investment — private beneficiaries’, in the financial years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014;

—

order the European 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 an infringement of Article 31(4)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds. That plea is divided into three arguments.

—

In the first argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not provide evidence of serious and reasonable doubt;

—

In the second argument, the applicant submits that the guidelines set out in the document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997 are not applicable to the present case;

—

In the third argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not align the imputed facts with the requirements for the 5 % financial correction provided for in Document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/50

Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Barnett v EESC

(Case T-23/17)

(2017/C 104/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

first of all, annul the decision of 21 March 2016, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015, excluding the applicant from early retirement without reduction of her pension rights;

—

in the alternative, order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the applicant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of material damage suffered by her plus default interest calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered by her;

—

in any event, order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in so far as the defendant failed to take account of the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC (F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107) (‘the CST judgment’), for the purposes of adopting enforcement measures. In particular, it is apparent from the grounds for the contested decision that the defendant diverged from the criteria set out in its general implementing provisions (GIP) in order to carry out the alleged re-examination of the applicant’s application. In any event, the contested decision does not remedy the unlawfulness found by the Civil Service Tribunal, namely the lack of identification of the interest of the service in the GIP of the EESC.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment of the interest of the service allegedly existing in 2013.

3.

Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging that the EESC is not competent to adopt a new decision relating to the grant of early retirement without reduction of pension rights following the deletion of article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Statute, by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15). As a consequence, as a result of the unlawfulness found in the CST judgment, the applicant was definitively deprived of the possibility of benefitting from the measure at issue. It is, therefore, necessary to fully compensate her.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/51

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-31/17)

(2017/C 104/71)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 660 202,73 relating to the expenditure declared by the Portugal under the technical assistance heading of the POSEI programme for the Azores in the financial years 2012 and 2013;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ 2006 L 42, p. 1).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds and an infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 170, p. 90).

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/51

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Amicus Therapeutics UK and Amicus Therapeutics v EMA

(Case T-33/17)

(2017/C 104/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Amicus Therapeutics UK Ltd (Gerrards Cross, United Kingdom) and Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (Cranbury, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul the decision, communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 14 December 2016, to release Clinical Study Report AT1001-011 under Regulation 1049/2001/EC;

—

in the alternative, remit the decision to the defendant in order to reconsider it, following an opportunity for the applicants to make specific submissions on particular parts of the clinical study report that should be redacted prior to release; and

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

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 clinical study report in question attracts a general presumption of confidentiality for the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, in light of: (i) the scheme and terms of the relevant EU sectoral legislation; (ii) the obligation on EU institutions to give effect to obligations under Article 39(3) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; and (iii) the importance to be attached to the applicants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to property.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the only legally permissible outcome of a proper balancing exercise, under Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, would have been a decision not to release the clinical study report in question, in light of: (i) the compelling weight of the applicants’ private interest in avoiding disclosure, given the destructive effect such disclosure would have upon fundamental property and business rights; and (ii) the merely vague and generic public interest in disclosure, there being no sufficiently pressing public need for disclosure.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/52

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case T-37/17)

(2017/C 104/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, and H. Leith, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

order the Council to pay the applicant compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures by way of the following acts, concerning restrictive measures against Iran: Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 (OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12); the followings sums should be paid to the applicant: 1 494 050 000 USD in respect of material damage, 1 000 000 EUR in respect of non-material damage, and interests on those amounts;

—

order the Council to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

The applicant alleges that the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon individuals and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the European Union is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/53

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-38/17)

(2017/C 104/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DQ and thirteen other parties (represented by: Mr Casado García Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare that the present application is admissible;

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 92 200 for the material damage caused;

—

order the defendant to pay all the expenses in the context of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging various faults or omissions committed by the administration of the defendant and which caused the material damage suffered by the applicants, namely all of the lawyer’s fees incurred in the context of their request for assistance introduced on 24 January 2014 under the first subparagraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct, in particular corruption detrimental to the interests of the European Union in the selection procedures of candidates, abuse and intimidation by the head of unit of the applicants in the daily exercise of their activities.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging prejudice caused by that conduct to the applicants’ dignity, and to their psychological and physical integrity adversely affecting their professional careers and their family lives.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging real and existing material damage suffered by the applicants and which is closely linked with the malice with which the European Parliament acted with regard to them, and with numerous steps they had to take, in particular as regards the need to have recourse to the advice of a lawyer.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ superiors failed to respond to the applicants despite the urgency and seriousness of the facts alleged by the latter. The applicants consider in particular that those facts should have led to action on the part of their superiors in order to bring to an end:

—

the unlawful activities;

—

the abusive and intimidating conduct of their head of unit and the unreasonable deadline of the administration for taking measures;

—

their difficult work conditions, which could have avoided a continued intervention of their lawyer.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging exceptional circumstances which would have made the intervention of a lawyer necessary or even essential in order to safeguard the rights of the applicants and to obtain an action of the Appointing Authority to deal with their allegations of psychological and sexual harassment to which they were exposed. The intervention of their lawyer was also justified in order to ensure the confidentiality of their testimonies, and to be protected from legal inconsistencies and the negligence of their superiors, and that with the aim of bringing to an end their unacceptable work conditions.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/54

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne ouest (port de Brest) v Commission

(Case T-39/17)

(2017/C 104/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie métropolitaine Bretagne ouest (port de Brest) (Brest, France) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded and, consequently:

—

annul the European Commission decision of 22 November 2016 [C (2016) 7755 final] in order to grant the applicant’s initial request, that is to say: ‘First of all, the signatories of the present request wish to receive, in accordance with Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the complete copy of the questionnaire and the answers to which the Commission refers in its opinion 2016/C 302/03 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 19 August 2016.’

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an overriding public interest in disclosure of the acquired information. The Commission was thus wrong to consider that the applicant had failed to show such an overriding public interest, although it is demonstrated by the European Treaties, namely Articles 10(3) and 11(2) of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), but also Articles 15(1) and 298(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), as well as Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the primacy of the European Treaties and the Charter over Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant considers that that regulation, which introduces lawful restrictions on the principles of transparency, participation and openness, must be interpreted and applied very restrictively taking account of the chronology of the adoption of the legal texts and of the Charter. Therefore, it considers that the defendant, first, should not have applied the general presumption that there is an undermining of the protection of the objectives of the investigation activities in so far as, in the present case, at issue is a cross-sectional enquiry and, secondly, it should have stated that the Member States had not requested that protection.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41(2) and 42 of the Charter, which guarantees access to the documents affecting one of the interested parties.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires equality of access to documents in the context of legal proceedings, even if administrative, in order to ensure the rights of the defence of the interested parties, in particular Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/55

Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Mackevision Medien Design v EUIPO (TO CREATE REALITY)

(Case T-50/17)

(2017/C 104/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mackevision Medien Design GmbH Stuttgart (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Stolz, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TO CREATE REALITY’ — Application for registration No 15 098 106

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2016 in Case R 995/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

—

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/55

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

(Case T-60/17)

(2017/C 104/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Safe Skies LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Schwepler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Travel Sentry, Inc. (Windermere, Florida, 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: EU word mark ‘TSA LOCK’ — EU trade mark No 4 530 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 233/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and to order the (potential) Intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

—

set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/56

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

(Case T-64/17)

(2017/C 104/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: C. Hall, Barrister and D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 13 930 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 331/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/57

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)

(Case T-67/17)

(2017/C 104/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tèespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 517

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 959/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

—

order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

—

alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

—

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

—

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/57

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)

(Case T-68/17)

(2017/C 104/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘teaespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 475

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 1099/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

—

order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

—

order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

—

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

—

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/58

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

(Case T-69/17)

(2017/C 104/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Application for registration No 13 971 163

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2205/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

annul Decision No 013971163 of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 September 2015;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

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

—

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/59

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — TenneT Holding v. EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

(Case T-70/17)

(2017/C 104/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd (London, 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 ‘NorthSeaGrid’ — Application for registration No 12 223 517

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 1607/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

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

—

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

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/59

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

(Case T-72/17)

(2017/C 104/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: B. Kuchar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Steirisches Kürbiskernöl’ — International registration No 900 100

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 in Case R 1768/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

amend the contested decision and declare the mark IR No 900 100 to be revoked for the EU for all goods;

in the alternative

—

annul the contested decision on account of the failure to provide evidence of use of IR No 900 100 as a trade mark and refer the proceedings back to EUIPO;

—

in any event, order the proprietor of the mark to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

infringement of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/60

Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)

(Case T-78/17)

(2017/C 104/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JUMBO’ — European Union trade mark No 10 492 131

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2016 in Case R 227/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the contested decision;

—

Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. The applicant claims, in particular, that the trade mark ‘JUMBO’ is not subject to any of the prohibitions set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation. That mark is not descriptive of the products which it designates.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/61

Action brought on 10 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-86/17)

(2017/C 104/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marine Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 taken in accordance with Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 issuing a demand for payment to the applicant in respect of EUR 298 497,87 for sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, stating reasons for the recovery of those sums and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accountant, to recover those sums in accordance with Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation (‘the FR’);

—

annul the debit note No 2016-1560 of 6 December 2016, demanding that applicant pay the sum of EUR 298 497,87 pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 86 of the Implementing Measure for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the FR;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

—

order the European Parliament to pay Ms Le Pen EUR 50 000 as payment for recoverable costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant puts forward twelve pleas:

1.

First plea, based on the lack of competence of the author of the act. The applicant takes the view that the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 (‘the contested decision’) falls within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament and the signatory of the decision did not indicate any delegation of powers.

2.

Second plea, based on the lack of reasoning in the contested decision, even though that requirement is laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.

Third plea claiming infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the contested decision referred to the investigation report prepared by the European Anti- Fraud Office (‘OLAF’), closed on 26 July 2016, which was not communicated to the applicant. Therefore, applicant was not heard and was not able to properly avail herself of her right to defend herself, since the Secretary General refused to communicate to her the evidence on which the contested decision is based.

4.

Fourth plea, based on the failure by the Secretary General of the European Parliament to personally examine file. According to the applicant, the latter merely relied on the report by OLAF and never personally examined the applicant’s situation.

5.

Fifth plea, based on the lack of any facts supporting the contested decision and the debit note (‘the contested acts’), in that the facts on which they are based are inaccurate.

6.

Sixth plea, based on the reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for her to adduce evidence of her parliamentary assistant’s work, but that it is for the competent authorities to prove the contrary.

7.

Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as there are no grounds with regard to the details or the method of calculation of the sum claimed from the applicant, and it is assumed that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

8.

Eighth plea, based on an abuse of powers, in that the contested acts were adopted with the aim of depriving the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, of the means to carry out her mandate.

9.

Ninth plea, based on an abuse of process. The applicant considers that, to avoid being ordered to send her the OLAF report which was in his possession, the Secretary General unlawfully sent the request for communication of that report to OLAF which has not sent her the report.

10.

Tenth plea, based on discrimination and the existence of fumus persecutionis, in that the circumstances surrounding the present dispute exclusively concern the applicant and her party.

11.

Eleventh plea, based on the undermining of the independence of a member of parliament and the consequences of the lack of any binding mandate. The contested acts were undoubtedly intended to impede the freedom to exercise the applicant’s parliamentary mandate, by depriving her of the financial means necessary to carry out her mission. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to receive instructions from the Secretary General as to how she was to carry out her mandate, subject to the threat of financial sanctions.

12.

Twelfth plea, based on OLAF’s lack of independence, in that that body did not offer any guarantee of impartiality and probity and is under the control of the European Commission.

3.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/62

Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Kuka Systems v EUIPO (Matrix light)

(Case T-87/17)

(2017/C 104/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Matrix light’ — Application for registration No 14 779 714

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 886/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.