		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 279

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 59 1 August 2016

Notice No	Contents	page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2016/C 279/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2016/C 279/02	Case C-541/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — State aid — Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Act of individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures)	2
2016/C 279/03	Case C-563/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — State aid — Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Act of individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures)	3
2016/C 279/04	Case C-227/15 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Jean-Marie Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Article 28(1) — Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union — Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 — Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller — Production of spirits with designation of origin	3
2016/C 279/05	Case C-232/15 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — ultra air GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — EU word mark ultra.air ultrafilter — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal or for invalidity — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)	4
2016/C 279/06	Joined Cases C-264/15 P and C-265/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Article 263 TFEU — Situation of a person not directly affected by the decision under appeal — Customs union — Subsequent entry in the accounts and remission of import duties — Reception apparatus for colour television sets from Turkey)	4
2016/C 279/07	Case C-279/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party — Action for annulment — Right to an effective judicial remedy)	5
2016/C 279/08	Case C-281/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Scope — Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)	5
2016/C 279/09	Case C-285/15: Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Free movement of goods — Directive 89/106/EEC — Construction products — Chimney linings — National legislation requiring chimneys to be made exclusively with non-combustible materials)	6
2016/C 279/10	Case C-394/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission (Appeal — OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission — Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned — Action for annulment and compensation)	7
2016/C 279/11	Case C-462/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Verners Pudāns v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Direct support schemes — Article 29(1) — Obligation to make payments in full to the beneficiaries — Income tax)	7
2016/C 279/12	Case C-555/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Physiotherapy — Osteopathy	8
2016/C 279/13	Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 53(2) — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Purely internal situation — Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction)	8
2016/C 279/14	Case C-198/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission	9
2016/C 279/15	Case C-227/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV	10
2016/C 279/16	Case C-231/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others	10
2016/C 279/17	Case C-243/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2016 — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García v Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert	12
2016/C 279/18	Case C-245/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2016 — Nerea SpA v Regione Marche	13
2016/C 279/19	Case C-247/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2016 — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert	14
2016/C 279/20	Case C-252/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert	15
2016/C 279/21	Case C-257/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH	15
2016/C 279/22	Case C-268/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Binca Seafoods GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-94/15 Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission	16
2016/C 279/23	Case C-269/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano	17
2016/C 279/24	Case C-270/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal	18
2016/C 279/25	Case C-279/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2016 in Case T-675/14 Spain v Commission	18
2016/C 279/26	Case C-281/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2016 — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken	19
2016/C 279/27	Case C-283/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.	20
2016/C 279/28	Case C-299/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 May 2016 — Z Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet	20
2016/C 279/29	Case C-321/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office (Ireland) made on 6 June 2016 — Maria Isabel Harmon v Owen Pardue	22
2016/C 279/30	Case C-323/14: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond	23
2016/C 279/31	Case C-571/14: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond	23
2016/C 279/32	Case C-150/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten beim Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge v N, in the presence of: Federal Republic of Germany	24
2016/C 279/33	Case C-481/15: Order of the President of the Eighth of the Court of 11 May 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany	24
2016/C 279/34	Case C-483/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Albini & Pitigliani SpA	24
2016/C 279/35	Case C-533/15: Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj	24
2016/C 279/36	Case C-543/15: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie	25
2016/C 279/37	Case C-684/15: Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg	25
	General Court
2016/C 279/38	Case T-118/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Household appliances — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)	26
2016/C 279/39	Case T-381/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action)	26
2016/C 279/40	Case T-220/15: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2016 — Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	27
2016/C 279/41	Case T-222/15: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2016 — Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	28
2016/C 279/42	Case T-595/15: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission (Action for annulment — Alleged refusal to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment of a European law association — Act not amenable to review — Manifest inadmissibility)	28
2016/C 279/43	Case T-151/16: Action brought on 12 April 2016 — NC v Commission	29
2016/C 279/44	Case T-235/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)	30
2016/C 279/45	Case T-246/16: Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)	31
2016/C 279/46	Case T-263/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Magnetrol International v Commission	32
2016/C 279/47	Case T-265/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Puratos and others v Commission	33
2016/C 279/48	Case T-266/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission	34
2016/C 279/49	Case T-278/16: Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission	34
2016/C 279/50	Case T-291/16: Action brought on 3 June 2016 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two drawn lines)	35
2016/C 279/51	Case T-292/16: Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)	36
2016/C 279/52	Case T-293/16: Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)	37
2016/C 279/53	Case T-294/16: Action brought on 8 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)	38
2016/C 279/54	Case T-295/16: Action brought on 6 June 2016 — SymbioPharm v EMA	38
2016/C 279/55	Case T-302/16: Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament	40
2016/C 279/56	Case T-191/15: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — SLE Schuh v EUIPO — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon (VIOS)	40
2016/C 279/57	Case T-697/15: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)	41

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

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

(2016/C 279/01)

Last publication

Past publications

These texts are available on:

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

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/2

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)

(Case C-541/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Right to bring an action - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - State aid - Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Act of individual concern to the appellant - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures))

(2016/C 279/02)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S (represented by: B. Jacobi, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and M. P-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. C. Thorning, acting as Agent and R. Holdgaard, advokat), Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Limited (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Pliego Selie and M. Groothuismink, advocaten), European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (represented by: J. Heithecker, C.-D. Ehlermann and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S is ordered to pay the costs.

3.	The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/3

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)

(Case C-563/14 P) (1)

(2016/C 279/03)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, advokater)

Other parties to the proceedings:

European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and M. P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent and R. Holdgaard, advokat), Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd (represented by: A. Pliego Selie, O. Brouwer and M. Groothuismink, advocaten), European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (represented by: J. Heithecker, C.-D. Ehlermann and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Dansk Automat Brancheforening is ordered to pay the costs.

3.	The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/3

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Jean-Marie Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission, French Republic

(Case C-227/15 P) (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Article 28(1) - Compulsory distillation of the quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the normal quantity and not exported outside the Union - Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 - Distillation carried out by the producer himself in his capacity as distiller - Production of spirits with designation of origin)

(2016/C 279/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Chantal Goulard, Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Sophie Landrit, Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Françoise Rousseau, René Roy, Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Barbagallo and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and B. Schima, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dimissed.

Messrs Jean-Marie Cahier, Robert Aubineau, Laurent Bigot, Pascal Bourdeau, Jacques Brard-Blanchard, Olivier Charruaud, Daniel Chauvet, Régis Chauvet, Fabrice Compagnon, Francis Crepeau, Philippe Davril, Bernard Deborde, Ms Chantal Goulard, Messrs Jean-Pierre Gourdet, Bernard Goursaud, Jean Gravouil, Guy Herbelot, Rodrigue Herbelot, Ms Sophie Landrit, Messrs Michel Mallet, Michel Merlet, Alain Phelipon, Claude Potut, Philippe Pruleau, Philippe Riche, Ms Françoise Rousseau, Mr René Roy and Ms Pascale Rulleaud-Beaufour shall bear their own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 311 of 21.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/4

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — ultra air GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-232/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - EU word mark ultra.air ultrafilter - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal or for invalidity - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 279/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: ultra air GmbH (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent), Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (represented by: N. Siebertz and M. Teworte-Vey, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	ultra air GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/4

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Joined Cases C-264/15 P and C-265/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Article 263 TFEU - Situation of a person not directly affected by the decision under appeal - Customs union - Subsequent entry in the accounts and remission of import duties - Reception apparatus for colour television sets from Turkey))

(2016/C 279/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Makro autoservicio mayorista SA and Vestel Iberia SL shall pay the costs.

3.	The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/5

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS v European Commission

(Case C-279/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) - European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party - Action for annulment - Right to an effective judicial remedy))

(2016/C 279/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Alexandre Borde, Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Mr Borde and Carbonium SAS shall pay the costs jointly and severally.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/5

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

(Case C-281/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Scope - Recognition of a private divorce decision pronounced by a religious court in a third country - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))

(2016/C 279/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Operative part of the order:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich, Germany) by decision of 2 June 2015.

(1) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/6

Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-285/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Free movement of goods - Directive 89/106/EEC - Construction products - Chimney linings - National legislation requiring chimneys to be made exclusively with non-combustible materials))

(2016/C 279/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beca Engineering Srl

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Operative part of the order

The compatibility with EU law of national legislation requiring chimneys in civil heating systems to be constructed using incombustible materials, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be assessed in the light of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003.

On a proper construction 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 rules concerning services of the information society, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, such national legislation must be treated as a technical rule within the meaning of Article 1(3) and (11) of that directive, and for want of notification to the European Commission by the Member State concerned, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, as amended, that national legislation is inapplicable, which individuals may rely upon before the national courts.

(1) OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/7

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — John Dalli v European Commission

(Case C-394/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - OLAF investigation report concerning a Member of the European Commission - Alleged oral decision of the President of the Commission to terminate the term of office of the Commissioner concerned - Action for annulment and compensation))

(2016/C 279/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Mr John Dalli is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/7

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Verners Pudāns v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-462/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Direct support schemes - Article 29(1) - Obligation to make payments in full to the beneficiaries - Income tax))

(2016/C 279/11)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verners Pudāns

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part

Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation.

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/8

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria- Portugal) — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-555/15) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Physiotherapy - Osteopathy)

(2016/C 279/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the order

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a physiotherapist who, in the context of his professional health activity, uses, either indistinctly or complementarily, both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy must be exempt from value added tax not only with regard to the former therapies, but also with regard to the latter, where the exclusion of the therapies characteristic of osteopathy from the exercise of paramedical professions for the purposes of an exemption from value added tax exceeds the scope of the discretion granted to Member States by that provision.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/8

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

(Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 53(2) - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2016/C 279/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15)

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decisions of 12 November 2015.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/9

Appeal brought on 8 April 2016 by Agriconsulting Europe SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 28 January 2016 in Case T-570/13 Agriconsulting Europe SA v European Commission

(Case C-198/16 P)

(2016/C 279/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (represented by: R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance in the light of the guidance to be provided by the Court of Justice;

—	order the Commission to pay the cost of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-570/13.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.	As regards award criteria Nos 1 and 2: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant; breach of the principle of compensation for damage as regards its scope of application.

As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee.

Distortion and misrepresentation of the application and the evidence concerning the bid in respect of additional tasks; misinterpretation of the parameters relating to the concept of an abnormally low offer and of the rights of the parties to the proceedings to verification of the anomaly identified: breach of the tendering rules; distortion and misrepresentation of the appellant’s evidence.

4.	Misinterpretation of the actual and certain nature of the damage for which compensation is to be paid.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

(Case C-227/16)

(2016/C 279/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jan Theodorus Arts

Respondent: Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

Questions referred

Is a set of clauses in an agreement between a calf fattener and an integration undertaking, …, from which it follows that the single payment allocated to the calf fattener pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers is payable to the integration undertaking by means of a deduction from the price for the fattened calves, valid, given the objectives of that regulation, in particular the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers by means of direct income support and the promotion of public health, animal health, the environment and animal welfare?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: does the national court, given the conflict which exists with the objectives of Regulation No 73/2009, have the power to modify the agreement on the basis of the clausula rebus sic stantibus doctrine in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the nullity of that set of clauses is fully or partially eliminated for the integration undertaking, in particular by lowering the price for fattened calves?

(1) Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Merck KGaA v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others

(Case C-231/16)

(2016/C 279/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck KGaA

Defendants: Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH

Questions referred

Must the term ‘same cause of action’ in Article 109(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as applying to the maintenance and use of a worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, on account of which actions for infringement between the same parties have been brought before the courts of different Member States, one action being for infringement of an EU trade mark and the other being for infringement of a national trade mark?

Must the term ‘same cause of action’ in Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as applying to the maintenance and use of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, in each case — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, on account of which actions for infringement between the same parties have been brought before the courts of different Member States, one action being for infringement of an EU trade mark and the other being for infringement of a national trade mark?

Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that when a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State is seised of an ‘action for infringement’ of an EU trade mark through the maintenance of a worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online website under the same domain name, and claims have been put forward to it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States, it must decline jurisdiction under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 only for the territory of the other Member State in which a court had been ‘first’ seised of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (which is identical to and covers identical goods as the EU trade mark asserted before the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, or, in such a situation, must the ‘court other than the court first seised’, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, decline jurisdiction with regard to all claims put forward before it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States and therefore in relation to EU-wide claims?

Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that when a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State is seised of an ‘action for infringement’ of an EU trade mark on account of the maintenance of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names of ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, and claims have been put forward to it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States, it must decline jurisdiction under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 only for the territory of the other Member State in which a court was ‘first’ seised of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (which is identical to and covers identical goods as the EU trade mark asserted before the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, to the extent that both the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, or in such a situation must the ‘court other than the court first seised’, to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered are identical, decline jurisdiction with regard to all claims put before it under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States and therefore in relation to EU-wide claims?

Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an action –– brought before the ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State, for infringement of an EU trade mark infringement through the maintenance of a worldwide, and therefore also an EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, in which claims had initially been put forward under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States –– in relation to the territory of the other Member State in which a court was ‘first seised’ of a claim for infringement of a national trade mark (that is identical to and covers identical goods as an EU trade mark asserted at the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online internet presence under the same domain name, precludes a declining of jurisdiction by the ‘court other than the court first seised’ under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered by the marks are identical?

Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an action –– brought before a ‘court other than the court first seised’ of a Member State, on account of infringement of an EU trade mark through the maintenance of worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content of the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, with which claims had initially been made under Article 97(2) and Article 98(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to acts of infringement committed or threatened within the territory of any of the Member States –– in relation to the territory of the other Member State in which a court was first seised of a claim for infringement of a national mark (that is identical to and covers identical goods as an EU trade mark asserted at the ‘court other than the court first seised’) through the maintenance and use of the same worldwide, and therefore also EU-wide, identical online content on the internet domain names ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’, each — as regards the relevant domain names of ‘facebook.com’ and/or ‘youtube.com’ and/or ‘twitter.com’ — under the same username, precludes a declining of jurisdiction by the ‘court other than the court first seised’ under Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the extent that the marks themselves and the goods and services covered by the marks are identical?

Must Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 be interpreted as meaning that it follows from the wording ‘where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for identical goods or services’ that, in a situation where the marks are identical, the ‘court other than the court first seised’ is without jurisdiction only in so far as the EU trade mark and the earlier national trade mark are registered for the same goods and/or services, or is the ‘court other than the court first seised’entirely without jurisdiction, even when the EU trade mark asserted before that court also protects additional goods and/or services that are not protected by the other national mark, for which the contested acts may be identical or similar?

(1) OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2016 — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García v Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert

(Case C-243/16)

(2016/C 279/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García and Juan Gregorio Benito García

Defendants: Contimark S.A. and Jordi Socías Gispert

Questions referred

Under Directives 2009/101/EC (1) and 2012/30/EU (2) and their transposing provisions in Articles 236, 237, 238, 241 and 367, inter alia, of the Law on Capital Companies (Ley de Sociedades de Capital), does a creditor of a company who pursues his employment-related claim before the competent Spanish courts — the social courts — have the right to bring simultaneously before the same court a direct action against the company for the establishment of employment-related debts and, cumulatively, an action against a natural person — the company director —, as a person with joint and several liability for the company’s debts, on the ground of non-fulfilment of the company obligations laid down in those directives and transposed in the Spanish Law on Capital Companies?

Is it possible that the case-law of the Sala de lo Social (Social Division) of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), as expressed in the judgments of 28 February 1997 (RJ 1997\4220), 28 October 1997 (RJ 1997\7680), 31 December 1997 (RJ 1997\9644), 13 April 1998 (RJ 1998\4577), 17 January 2000 (RJ 2000\918), 9 June 2000 (RJ 2000\5109), 8 May 2002 and 20 December 2012 (summarised in the present order in the second point of the section dealing with applicable national case-law), might infringe Articles 2, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2009/101/EC and Articles 19 and 36 of Directive 2012/30/EU, in holding that Spanish social courts may not apply directly in relation to employment-related claims the safeguards, provided for in those directives and transposed into Spanish law in Articles 236, 237, 238, 241, 367 and others of the Law on Capital Companies, for creditors of companies when those ultimately in charge of such companies — natural persons — fail to comply with the formal requirements regarding disclosure of basic documents of the company laid down in Directive 2009/101 and Directive 2012/30 and transposed in the Spanish Law on Capital Companies?

Is it possible that the case-law of the Sala de lo Social (Social Division) of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), as expressed in the judgments of 28 February 1997 (RJ 1997\4220), 28 October 1997 (RJ 1997\7680), 31 December 1997 (RJ 1997\9644), 13 April 1998 (RJ 1998\4577), 17 January 2000 (RJ 2000\918), 9 June 2000 (RJ 2000\5109), 8 May 2002 and 20 December 2012 (summarised in the present order in the second point of the section dealing with applicable national case-law), might be contrary to Articles 20 and 21, in conjunction with Article 51, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in requiring an employment-related creditor — an employee — to bring two sets of legal proceedings, the first before the social courts for establishment of the claim against the employer and the second before the civil/commercial courts to obtain the joint and several guarantee of the company director or other natural persons, when that requirement is not laid down for any other type of creditor — regardless of the nature of his claim — in Directive 2009/101/EC, Directive 2012/30/EU or any of the domestic legal provisions (Law on Capital Companies) transposing those Community provisions into Spanish law?

(1) Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 258, p. 11).

(2) Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 74).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 28 April 2016 — Nerea SpA v Regione Marche

(Case C-245/16)

(2016/C 279/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nerea SpA

Defendant: Regione Marche

Questions referred

First of all, does Article 1(7)(c) of Regulation No 800/2008 (1) concern only those procedures that may be opened by administrative or judicial authorities of the Member States of their own motion (in Italy, for example, insolvency procedures) or does it also concern procedures that may be opened only at the request of the economic operator concerned (as is the case in the national law for an arrangement with creditors)? The question arises because the provision refers to ‘being the subject of’ collective insolvency proceedings.

If were to be concluded that Regulation No 800/2008 concerns all collective proceedings, then, with specific reference to the instrument of an arrangement with creditors as a going concern under Article 186a of Royal Decree No 267/1942, must Article 1(7)(c) of Regulation No 800/2008 be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the requirements for opening collective proceedings exist in relation to an operator who applies for assistance from the structural funds prevents such financing being granted, or requires the administering national authority to withdraw the financing already granted or, on the contrary, that the situation of difficulty must be appraised in the specific case, bearing in mind, for instance, the timing of the procedure, the economic operator’s honouring of the undertakings given and any other relevant factor?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2016 — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert

(Case C-247/16)

(2016/C 279/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heike Schottelius

Defendant: Falk Seifert

Question referred

Can a principle of EU consumer law be derived from the second indent of Article 3[(5)] of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (1) to the effect that for all transactions in respect of consumer goods between non-consumers and consumers it is sufficient, in order to claim secondary rights under a warranty, that the non-consumer with warranty obligations has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, and there is no requirement in that respect that a period of time for removing the defect be fixed expressly, and that the relevant provisions of national law, for instance also in the case of a contract for work on consumer goods, should be interpreted accordingly and if necessary applied restrictively?

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert

(Case C-252/16)

(2016/C 279/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA)

Defendant: Josef Ebert

By decision of 31 May 2016, the Court removed the case from the Court’s Register

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-257/16)

(2016/C 279/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Questions referred

1.	Is a technical defect of the aircraft caused by bird strike, that is, a collision in the air between the aircraft and birds, an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation? (1)

Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/16

Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Binca Seafoods GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-94/15 Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-268/16 P)

(2016/C 279/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15 and

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal seeks the annulment of the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15, which declared the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture, together with the application that that regulation should be declared null and void, to be inadmissible.

The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Title VI, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.

The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The Court misconstrued the object of its complaint, which was to obtain competitive protection, as a claim to itself benefit from the extended transitional provisions, which however is not the object of its action for annulment.

The appellant complains that it is discriminated against as a provider of pangasius aquaculture products in Vietnam in relation to providers of aquaculture animal products, in particular those in the European Union, in relation to which transitional provisions were extended by the contested regulation beyond the end of 2015, whereas those provisions terminated in relation to pangasius.

The appellant alleges that its competitors were able, as a result of arbitrary advantages, to offer their products with the ‘Bio’ label, whereas it was unable to benefit from that. It claims that the competitors have an unfair and completely unjustified competitive advantage in that those competitors are able to use the ‘Bio’ label although they fail to fully comply with the requirements of EU Bio-law. The appellant claims that it should be treated equally by the Union legislature.

It alleges an infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and discrimination under Article 21. It also alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.

(1) OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

(Case C-269/16)

(2016/C 279/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

Questions referred

Are Article 6(1)(d) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) applicable to situations in which a trader’s fees are regulated by a legal provision? If so, must Directive 2005/29/EC be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that contained in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, under which the fee regime established by statute is mandatory, even though the trader fails to give information or gives misleading information concerning the calculation of the price for his services?

Must Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which makes the remuneration of lawyers who provide legal aid services, if the application is upheld, subject to a scale of fees previously approved by those lawyers, from which the authorities of the Member State may not depart?

Does that rule satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality to which Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) refers?

Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which obliges the … [beneficiaries] of the right to legal aid, if their action succeeds and no order for costs is made, to pay the lawyer the fees determined in accordance with scales approved by a professional body amounting to more than 50 % of the annual amount of a social security benefit?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the 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’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

(2) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero v Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-270/16)

(2016/C 279/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Cuenca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carlos Enrique Ruiz Conejero

Defendants: Ferroser Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. and Ministerio Fiscal

Question referred

Does Directive 2000/78 (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee on objective grounds for absences from work, albeit justified but intermittent, which amount to 20 % of the employee’s working hours in two consecutive months, provided that the total absences in the previous 12 months amount to 5 % of working hours or 25 % of working hours in four non-consecutive months within a 12-month period, in the case of an employee who must be treated as disabled within the meaning of the directive when his absence from work was caused by his disability?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/18

Appeal brought on 19 May 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2016 in Case T-675/14 Spain v Commission

(Case C-279/16 P)

(2016/C 279/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court;

—

in the new judgment handed down annul Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014, (1) on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as regards the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the amount of EUR 2 713 208,07.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An error of law based on a lack of statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, in so far as the General Court was obliged to rule on the lack of statement of reasons in the Commission decision because the plea in question was formulated in a sufficiently clear and precise manner to enable the General Court to adopt a position.

An error of law as regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons because the reasoning relied on by the General Court is not compatible with the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity which must characterise the reasoning in the Commission decision in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. The reasoning of the measure was neither clear nor unambiguous, thereby infringing the Kingdom of Spain’s rights of defence.

A manifest distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court manifestly distorted the facts in finding in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal that ‘The Kingdom of Spain has not demonstrated that certain farms were not subject to any of the obligations in respect of which deficiencies were detected’. First, that statement is contrary to the nature of the cross-compliance system given that in that area only certain farms may pose a risk, and they are the ones to which the specific requirements in respect of which deficiencies have been detected are applied. Secondly, there was a manifest distortion of the facts because the Kingdom of Spain provided the Commission with specific data which shows how certain farms were not subject to the specific obligations.

An error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and with regard to the principle of proportionality in relation to the application of a flat-rate correction and the rejection of the correction proposed by the Kingdom of Spain.

4.1

An error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) because that provision requires that the financial damage caused is taken into account as an essential factor. Since that damage had been evaluated precisely by the Kingdom of Spain, flat-rate correction, which is a means available only where it was impossible to have recourse to a more appropriate method, should not have been used.

4.2

And an error of law in respect of the review of the principle of proportionality because the method used by the Commission produced a flat-rate correction some 530 % higher than the calculation put forward by the Kingdom of Spain. The Kingdom of Spain’s calculation took into account actual data of the penalties imposed in subsequent years in which the cross-compliance deficiencies had been corrected. The amount resulting from the flat-rate correction is absolutely disproportionate and the paying agencies must not meet the costs of corrections which are overvalued.

An error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and with regard to the principle of proportionality in so far as it was held that a flat-rate financial correction could be applied concurrently with a one-off financial correction in respect of the same budget line for 2008. First, in accordance with the document AGRI-2005-64043 no corrections are applied to amounts already corrected for the same grounds; secondly, under the case-law of the Court of Justice the concurrent application of corrections is only allowed when the risk incurred by the Fund cannot be covered by analytical corrections alone; lastly, a disproportionate and unjustified result has been produced since, if the flat-rate correction alone had been applied, the amount to be taken away would have been less than that resulting from applying both financial corrections concurrently.

(1) OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2016 — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-281/16)

(2016/C 279/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Question referred

Is the Commission Implementing Decision of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, (1) in so far as the ‘Haringvliet’ site (NL 1000015) was thereby placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder, valid?

(1) OJ 2015 L 18, p. 385.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.

(Case C-283/16)

(2016/C 279/27)

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.

Questions referred

In circumstances where a maintenance creditor wishes to enforce in one Member State an order which has been obtained in another Member State, does Chapter IV of EU Regulation 4/2009 (1) (the Maintenance Regulation) confer upon her a right to make an application for enforcement directly to the competent authority of the requested state?

ii.	If the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, should Chapter IV of the Maintenance Regulations be interpreted so as to mean that each member state is obliged to provide a procedure or mechanism such as will enable the right to be recognised?

(1) 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

OJ L 7, p. 1

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 May 2016 — Z Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-299/16)

(2016/C 279/28)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Z Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred

Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?

1.1.	Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention?

1.2.

If question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)?

1.3.

If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, in that case of what significance is it in the assessment of whether a company can be deemed not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person and if most of the persons deemed by the State where the person paying the interest is resident to be the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest are resident in other Member States or other States with which Denmark has entered into a double taxation convention, so that under domestic law there would not have been a basis for retaining tax at source had those persons been lenders and thereby received the interest directly?

1.4.

What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or of Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?

2.1.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt … under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive?

Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with OECD’s Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive?

Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company, bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

In a case where an interest payer is resident in one Member State and the interest recipient is resident in another Member State and where the interest recipient is deemed by the first Member State not to be the ‘beneficial owner’ of the interest in question under Directive 2003/49/EC and is therefore deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, preclude legislation under which the first Member State, in the taxation of the non-resident interest recipient, does not take account of expenses in the form of interest expenses that the interest recipient has had in circumstances such as those of the present case, whilst interest expenses are generally deductible under that Member State’s legislation and can therefore be deducted from taxable income by a resident interest recipient?

If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, preclude legislation under which the latter Member State requires the company liable for retaining the tax at source (subsidiary) to pay overdue interest in the event of overdue payment of the tax at source claim at a higher rate of interest than the overdue interest rate that the Member State charges on corporation tax claims (including interest income) lodged against a company resident in the same Member State?

7.1.

the latter Member State requires the person paying the interest to retain tax at source on the interest and makes that person liable to the authorities for the non-retained tax at source, where there is no such duty to retain tax at source when the interest recipient is resident in the latter Member State?

7.2.	a parent company in the latter Member State would not have been required to make advance payments of corporation tax in the first two fiscal years, but would only have begun to pay corporation tax at a much later time than the due date for tax at source?

The EU Court of Justice is requested to include the answer to question 6 in its answer to this question.

(1) Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office (Ireland) made on 6 June 2016 — Maria Isabel Harmon v Owen Pardue

(Case C-321/16)

(2016/C 279/29)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Dublin Circuit & District Civil Courts Office

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Isabel Harmon

Defendant: Owen Pardue

Questions referred

1.	Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP breached the fundamental rights of Mr. Pardue and in particular those rights as provided for in Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 and supplemented for in the Preamble of CFR?

2.	Having regard to the foregoing has the DPP the right to refuse to comply with legitimate Court Orders and/or if she fails to comply and/or fails to give an explanation or reason for the non compliance, is this compatible with the CFR?

Having regard to the foregoing and given that the DPP’s decisions are only reviewable by a court if demonstrated that the DPP reached a decision mala fides or influenced by an improper motive or improper policy, as the present state of Irish law permits, is this consistent and compatible with the CFR having regard to the facts of this case?

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/23

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Helm AG v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-323/14) (1)

(2016/C 279/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/23

Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-571/14) (1)

(2016/C 279/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/24

Order of the President of the Court of 15 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten beim Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge v N, in the presence of: Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-150/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/32)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/24

Order of the President of the Eighth of the Court of 11 May 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-481/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/33)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/24

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Albini & Pitigliani SpA

(Case C-483/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/34)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/24

Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-533/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/35)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/25

Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-543/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/36)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/25

Order of the President of the Court of 25 April 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-684/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/37)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

General Court

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-118/13) (1)

((Actions for annulment - State aid - Household appliances - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 279/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, É. Gippini Fournier and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Electrolux AB (Stockholm, Sweden), represented by F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) and Fagor France SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/283/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.23839 (C 44/2007) that France plans to grant to FagarBrandt (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2.	Orders Whirlpool Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the French Republic, Electrolux AB and Fagor France SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-381/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))

(2016/C 279/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka.

2.	The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.

3.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/27

Order of the General Court of 7 June 2016 — Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE)

(Case T-220/15) (1)

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

(2016/C 279/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2015 (Case R 1424/2014-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign WE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Beele Engineering BV shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/28

Order of the General Court of 7 June 2016 — Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE)

(Case T-222/15) (1)

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

(2016/C 279/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2015 (Case R 1933/2014-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign WE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Beele Engineering BV shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/28

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission

(Case T-595/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Alleged refusal to submit a legislative proposal for the establishment of a European law association - Act not amenable to review - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 279/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz eV (Much, Germany) and Horst Giesen (Much) (represented by: P. Brockmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and K.-P. Wojcik, Agents)

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 17 August 2015 by which it declined to submit a legislative proposal aimed at establishing a European association.

Operative part

1)	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2)	Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz eV and Horst Giesen are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/29

Action brought on 12 April 2016 — NC v Commission

(Case T-151/16)

(2016/C 279/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NC (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers and C. Van Haute and A. Bernard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 January 2016 to exclude the applicant from participation in procedures for the award of procurement contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union, and to enter the applicant in the Early Detection and Exclusion System provided for at Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1);

—	adopt the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

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

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 a breach of the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty (lex mitior), in failing to apply Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929 (1) to the contested decision.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a breach of an essential procedural requirement in failing to consult the panel and to revise its decision as required by Regulation No 966/2012 as amended by Regulation 2015/1929.

3.	Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and Article 133a(1) of Regulation No 2342/2002 (2) in applying an exclusion that is disproportionate in the circumstances.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of ne bis in idem to the extent that the applicant has already been excluded for the same conduct.

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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/30

Action brought on 10 May 2016 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

(Case T-235/16)

(2016/C 279/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GPTech’ — Application for registration No 12 593 869

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 848/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	alter the contested decision and reject the applicant’s trademark application No 12 593 869;

—	as a conditional application, annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of the Regulation No 207/2009 as the information requirements stated by Rule 17(4) of Regulation No 2868/95 which is dedicated to protect the opponent was not held applicable;

—	Infringement of an essential procedural requirement as the procedure was unfair to the opponent pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights.

—	Failure of the Office to inform the opponent that prerequisites as stated in Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 were not fulfilled;

—	Wrong application of Rule 76(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, as the procedure was unfair to the opponent in the light of deficiencies of the e-filing opposition form and of the information provided by the opposition division;

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

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/31

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — Aurora Group Danmark A/S v EUIPO — Retail Distribution ApS (PANZER)

(Case T-246/16)

(2016/C 279/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Group Danmark A/S (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: L. Elmgaard Sørensen)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Distribution ApS (Hinnerup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘PANZER’ — European Union trade mark No 12 111 084

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 447/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of ‘Computers, mobile phones, smart phones and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; phone charms; scratch protectors; protective casing and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; holders, cases and covers for mobile phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files; parts, fittings and accessories for mobiles phones, smart phones, computers and other portable and handheld electronic devices for recording, organizing, transmitting, manipulating and reviewing text, data, image and audio files’;

—	Order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—	Set aside Article 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) of Regulation No 207/2009.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/32

Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Magnetrol International v Commission

(Case T-263/16)

(2016/C 279/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Magnetrol International (Zele, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

—

in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/33

Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Puratos and others v Commission

(Case T-265/16)

(2016/C 279/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Puratos (Dilbeek, Belgium), Delta Light (Wevelgem, Belgium) and Ontex (Buggenhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant(s): European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission

(Case T-266/16)

(2016/C 279/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Capsugel Belgium (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission’s Decision C(2015)9837 final of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme implemented by Belgium (SA.37667 (2015/C));

—	in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the contested decision;

—	in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state the reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using the State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission

(Case T-278/16)

(2016/C 279/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atlas Copco Airpower (Antwerp, Belgium) and Atlas Copco AB (Nacka, Sweden) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Haelterman and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

—	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.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/35

Action brought on 3 June 2016 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two drawn lines)

(Case T-291/16)

(2016/C 279/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anta (China) Co. Ltd (Jinjiang City, China) (represented by: A. Franke, K. Hammerstingl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of two drawn lines) — Application for registration No 13 581 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 in Case R 1292/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/36

Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)

(Case T-292/16)

(2016/C 279/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims’ — EU trade mark No 11 361 714

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2492/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	accept the present appeal;

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2492/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

—	condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of the principles of equality before the law and impartiality.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/37

Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)

(Case T-293/16)

(2016/C 279/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT’ – EU trade mark No 11 803 831

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2699/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	accept the present appeal;

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2699/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

—	condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of the principles of equality before the law and impartiality.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/38

Action brought on 8 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)

(Case T-294/16)

(2016/C 279/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MOUNT’ — EU trade mark No 7 157 233

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 1857/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	accept the present appeal;

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare the registration of the EUTM No. 7.157.233 ‘GOLD MOUNT’ (figurative) valid for all the products covered;

—	condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/38

Action brought on 6 June 2016 — SymbioPharm v EMA

(Case T-295/16)

(2016/C 279/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SymbioPharm GmbH (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of the EMA of 1 April 2016, which was delivered on 7 April 2016, to initiate a referral procedure under Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC with respect to the medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and similarly named medicinal products of the company SymbioPharm GmbH;

—	Order the EMA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: Infringement of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

The applicant submits that the referral procedure was initiated although no ‘specific case where the interests of the European Union are involved’ is set out in the notification of the German authorisations authority and that no such specific case, moreover, exists.

Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 29 of Directive 2001/83/EC

The applicant maintains that the German authorisations authority did not, in relation to the medicinal product for human use Symbioflor 2, set out the ‘risk to public health’, which is a precondition for the initiation of a procedure, and submits that, what is more, there is clearly no such risk.

Third plea in law: Infringement of Articles 116 and 117 of Directive 2001/83/EC

The applicant submits that the German authorisations authority has not made a case for the existence of an unfavourable benefit-risk balance with regard to the medicinal product for human use Symbioflor 2 and submits that there is clearly no such unfavourable benefit-risk balance.

Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the right to be heard

The applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC and of the principle of proportionality because the German authorisations authority did not make use of the possibility of ordering an efficacy study to be conducted (failure to exercise a discretion). It maintains that that is also shown by the express refusal of the German authorisations authority to organise a hearing in the form of a discussion on that subject with the ombudsman, as requested by the applicant.

5.	Fifth plea in law: Infringement of the principles of the rule of law Here the applicant submits that it is contrary to principles of the rule of law to initiate a referral procedure whilst national court proceedings in respect of the same subject-matter are pending.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/40

Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

(Case T-302/16)

(2016/C 279/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in limine litis,

—	annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;

—	annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016; in substance,

—	withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.

2.	Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.

3.	Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.

4.	Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/40

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — SLE Schuh v EUIPO — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon (VIOS)

(Case T-191/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/56)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/41

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)

(Case T-697/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/57)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.