ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 95

European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 60
27 March 2017


Notice No

Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

Court of Justice of the European Union

2017/C 95/01

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

1


 

V   Announcements

 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

 

Court of Justice

2017/C 95/02

Case C-342/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

2

2017/C 95/03

Case C-371/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

2

2017/C 95/04

Case C-401/16 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)

2

2017/C 95/05

Case C-402/16 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-312/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — GLAXO GROUP (MITOCHRON)

3

2017/C 95/06

Case C-410/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission

3

2017/C 95/07

Case C-440/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)

3

2017/C 95/08

Case C-469/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic

4

2017/C 95/09

Case C-485/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by Universal Protein Supplements Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2016 in Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: UNIVERSAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS v EUIPO — H YOUNG HOLDINGS (ANIMAL)

4

2017/C 95/10

Case C-628/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 5 December 2016 — Kreuzmayr GmbH

4

2017/C 95/11

Case C-8/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

5

2017/C 95/12

Case C-3/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2017 — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

6

 

General Court

2017/C 95/13

Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier designs — Plea of unlawfulness — Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of impartiality — Composition of the Board of Appeal — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Saturation of the state of the art — Date of assessment)

7

2017/C 95/14

Case T-98/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Right to be heard — Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court — Saturation of the state of the art)

8

2017/C 95/15

Case T-271/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — LD v EUIPO (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2011/2012 appraisal period — Distortion of facts — Error of law — Breach of fiduciary duty — Legitimate expectations)

8

2017/C 95/16

Case T-568/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR — Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

9

2017/C 95/17

Case T-688/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 — Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Prospect of promotion)

10

2017/C 95/18

Case T-15/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus) ((EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cystus — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the mark))

10

2017/C 95/19

Case T-30/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Nature of the use — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

11

2017/C 95/20

Case T-270/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Kerstens v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official — Disciplinary proceedings — Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts — Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand — Procedural irregularity — Consequences of the irregularity)

12

2017/C 95/21

Case T-900/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

12

2017/C 95/22

Case T-11/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council

13

2017/C 95/23

Case T-21/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

14

2017/C 95/24

Case T-29/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — RQ v Commission

15

2017/C 95/25

Case T-41/17: Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)

16

2017/C 95/26

Case T-43/17: Action brought on 24 January 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)

17

2017/C 95/27

Case T-44/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

17

2017/C 95/28

Case T-47/17: Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)

18

2017/C 95/29

Case T-49/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Spain v Commission

19

2017/C 95/30

Case T-53/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Austrian Power Grid v ACER

21

2017/C 95/31

Case T-63/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

23

2017/C 95/32

Case T-84/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

24

2017/C 95/33

Case T-88/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission

25


 

Corrigenda

2017/C 95/34

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials) ( OJ C 364, 3.10.2016 , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

26

2017/C 95/35

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission ( OJ C 441, 28.11.2016 , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

26


EN

 


IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/1


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

(2017/C 095/01)

Last publication

OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

Past publications

OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

These texts are available on:

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


V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2


Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case C-342/16 P)

(2017/C 095/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Novomatic AG (represented by: W. Mosing, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Granini France

By order of 6 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2


Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case C-371/16 P)

(2017/C 095/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: L'Oréal SA (represented by: J. P. Mioludo, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 8 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2


Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)

(Case C-401/16 P)

(2017/C 095/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/3


Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-312/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — GLAXO GROUP (MITOCHRON)

(Case C-402/16 P)

(2017/C 095/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/3


Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission

(Case C-410/16 P)

(2017/C 095/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Syndial SpA (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 9 February 2017, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate to bear its own costs.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/3


Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)

(Case C-440/16 P)

(2017/C 095/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (represented by: D. Farnsworth, solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sheraton International IP LLC

By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4


Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic

(Case C-469/16)

(2017/C 095/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mauro Infante (represented by: M. Iervolino, lawyer)

Defendant: Italian Republic

By order of 13 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the application and that Mr Mauro is to bear his own costs.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4


Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by Universal Protein Supplements Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2016 in Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: UNIVERSAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS v EUIPO — H YOUNG HOLDINGS (ANIMAL)

(Case C-485/16 P)

(2017/C 095/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), H Young Holdings plc

By order of 31 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 5 December 2016 — Kreuzmayr GmbH

(Case C-628/16)

(2017/C 095/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

Questions referred

Question 1:

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person X1 has at its disposal goods stored in Member State A and has sold those goods to a taxable person X2, and X2 has expressed to X1 its intention to transport the goods to Member State B, and X2 has presented to X1 its VAT identification number issued by Member State B,

and X2 has sold those goods on to a taxable person X3 and X2 has agreed with X3 that X3 will arrange or carry out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 has arranged or carried out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A,

and X2 has not, however, informed X1 that he has already sold on the goods before they leave Member State A,

and X1 also could not know that X2 would not be arranging or carrying out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B,

is EU law to be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply from X1 to X2 is determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 32 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and that the supply from X1 to X2 is thus the intra-Community (the so-called ‘active’) supply (bewegte Lieferung)?

Question 2:

If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that X3 may nevertheless deduct as input VAT an amount of VAT of Member State B invoiced to it by X2, provided that X3 uses the goods purchased for purposes of its transactions taxed in Member State B and no wrongful exercise of the right of deduction of input VAT can be imputed to X3?

Question 3:

If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative and X1 subsequently learns that X3 has arranged the transport and was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that the supply from X1 to X2 retrospectively loses its status as the intra-Community supply (that it is thus to be viewed retrospectively as a so-called ‘passive’ supply (ruhende Lieferung))?


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


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/5


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA v Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

(Case C-8/17)

(2017/C 095/11)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens SA

Defendant: Flexipiso — Pavimentos SA

Questions referred

1.

Does Directive 219/112/EC, (1) and in particular Articles 63, 167, 168, 178, 179, 180, 182 and 219 thereof, and the principle of neutrality, preclude legislation which has the result that, in circumstances where the seller of the goods, liable for VAT, (i) was subject to a tax inspection which found that the VAT rate that he applied in a given situation was less than the due rate, (ii) paid to the State the additional tax and (iii) seeks to obtain the respective payment from the purchaser, also liable for VAT, the time period for the latter to be able to deduct that additional tax is calculated from the date of issue of the initial invoices and not from the date of issue or receipt of the rectifying documents?

2.

If the foregoing question is answered in the negative, do the abovementioned articles of that directive and the principle of neutrality preclude legislation which has the result that, once documents rectifying the initial invoices are received, issued following the tax inspection and payment to the State of the additional tax, for the purpose of obtaining payment of that additional tax, at a time when the period for exercising the right of deduction has already elapsed, it is legitimate for the purchaser to refuse to pay, on the basis that refusal of the passing on of tax is justified where it is impossible to deduct that additional tax?


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


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/6


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2017 — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

(Case C-3/17)

(2017/C 095/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Defendants: Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherché, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

Questions referred

1.

Does the recognition of equivalent courses that Member States may give in accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) concern only the courses delivered in countries outside the European Union?

2.

Do the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Regulation authorise a Member State to determine the disciplines that may be regarded as ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology, within the meaning of the Regulation, and the levels of qualification that satisfy the requirements of the Regulation?

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, according to what criteria may the disciplines be considered ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.


General Court

27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/7


Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators)

(Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier designs - Plea of unlawfulness - Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principle of impartiality - Composition of the Board of Appeal - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Saturation of the state of the art - Date of assessment))

(2017/C 095/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by M. P. Bullock, and subsequently by L. Rampini and S. Di Natale, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vasco Group NV, formerly Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Haber, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2014 (Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Vasco Group BVBA and Antrax It.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

2.

Orders Antrax It Sarl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Vasco Group, including those incurred by Vasco Group NV for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3.


(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/8


Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators)

(Case T-98/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court - Saturation of the state of the art))

(2017/C 095/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and S. Di Natale, and subsequently by S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3);

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

4.

Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/8


Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — LD v EUIPO

(Case T-271/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2011/2012 appraisal period - Distortion of facts - Error of law - Breach of fiduciary duty - Legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 095/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal [confidential], (2) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Declares that LD is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property office in the present proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

(2)  Confidential data omitted.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9


Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — Morgese and Others v EUIPO — All Star (2 STAR)

(Case T-568/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 2 STAR - Earlier EU figurative mark ONE STAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 095/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by C. Sleep, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2015 (Case R 1906/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between All Star, on the one hand, and Messrs G. Morgese, P. Morgese and F. D’Onofrio, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Messrs Giuseppe Morgese, Pasquale Morgese and Felice D’Onofrio to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10


Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case T-688/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Rejection of the action at first instance, after its referral back by the General Court, as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Prospect of promotion))

(2017/C 095/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Auditors (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and B. Schäfer, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015, Schönberger v Court of Auditors (F-14/12 RENV, EU:F:2015:112), and seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Declares that Mr P. Schönberger is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors in the present proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10


Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

(Case T-15/16) (1)

(((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cystus - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the mark)))

(2017/C 095/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 (Case R 2839/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems and Mr Pandalis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/11


Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2017 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)

(Case T-30/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Earlier EU word marks INSTINCT and NATURE’S VARIETY - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Nature of the use - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 095/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: initially by T. Elias, Barrister, and B. Cookson, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Montañá Mora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker, lawyers, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between M. I. Industries and Natural Instinct.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 November 2015 (Case R 2944/2014-5) in so far as it concludes that there is no genuine use of the earlier word mark INSTINCT;

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by M. I. Industries Inc.;

4.

Orders M. I. Industries to bear half of its own costs;

5.

Orders Natural Instinct Ltd to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/12


Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-270/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official - Disciplinary proceedings - Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts - Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the irregularity))

(2017/C 095/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65) in so far as it rejects the claim for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Petrus Kerstens;

2.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Kerstens;

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.


(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/12


Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)

(Case T-900/16)

(2017/C 095/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casual Dreams, SLU (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Ángel López Fernández (Fuensalida, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dayaday’ — Application for registration No 13 243 563

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal adopted on 6 October 2016 in Case R 375/2016-2 dismissing in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO No B 2 469 545 of 17 December 2015;

dismiss the application for registration of the EU trademark No 13 243 563 filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal for all the goods in Class 9 and the portion of the goods in Classes 16 and 24 in respect of which the Second Board of Appeal has dismissed the appeal;

in the alternative, partially annul the contested decision, pursuant to Article 8(5) (EUTMR), in so far as it confirms the dismissal of the opposition and the appeal in respect of the goods in Classes 9, 16 and 24 and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for review in its entirety in respect of the relative ground referred to in the abovementioned article;

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/13


Action brought on 6 January 2017 — RK v Council

(Case T-11/17)

(2017/C 095/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RK (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

as a result,

annul the undated decision of the Council, adopted on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

so far as necessary, annul the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2016;

order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay damages by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of 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) and infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, as implemented by the Staff Note No 71/15 of the Council, and factual and legal inaccuracies and irregularities vitiating the contested decisions;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, and infringement of the rights of the defence.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials, and infringement of the principle of sound administration.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/14


Action brought on 13 January 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-21/17)

(2017/C 095/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RL (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present application admissible;

annul the decision adopted on 11 May 2016 by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the contents of which were communicated to the applicant by letter of 20 May 2016, not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 10 as of 1 July 2015 and, so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 6 October 2016 by the Complaints Committee rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant dated 22 July 2016;

order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal promotion system in place within the Court of Justice of the European Union;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of a single European civil service.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/15


Action brought on 17 January 2017 — RQ v Commission

(Case T-29/17)

(2017/C 095/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RQ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare his action admissible and well founded;

consequently, annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2016, C(2016)1449 final, relating to a request for waiver of immunity, notified on 11 March 2016 and of which the Director General learned on 14 March 2016 on his return from mission;

so far as necessary, annul the decision of 5 October 2016, under reference Ares(2016)5814495 — 07/10/2016, notified on 7 October 2016, by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint, which he had submitted on 10 June 2016 under reference No R/317/16;

order the defendant in any event to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) and 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in particular Article 23 thereof, and of Article 17 of the Protocol (No. 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and breach of the principle requiring the administration to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 24 thereof, and breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in particular infringement of the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of the public interest.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and manifest error of assessment.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the normal exercise of the rights of the defence, in particular of the right to be heard, the duty of impartiality and the observance of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the failure to act diligently, in particular as regards the observance of reasonable time-limits.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/16


Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)

(Case T-41/17)

(2017/C 095/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for an EU trade mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a koala) — Application for registration No 6 158 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 in Case R 250/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

annul the contested decision;

reject the opposition in its entirety;

order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

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

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


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/17


Action brought on 24 January 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)

(Case T-43/17)

(2017/C 095/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: No Limits International Investments SA (Bissone, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Canu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Morellato SpA (Fratte di Santa Giustina in Colle, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘NO LIMITS’ — European Union trade mark No 67 967

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 2007/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings in Case R 2007/2015-5 before the Board of Appeal, of the proceedings in Case 2919C before the Cancellation Division, and of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — error in the contested decision regarding the relevant date for the assessment of the invalidity of the EU trade mark;

Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 53 of Regulation No 207/2009 — absent, insufficient and contradictory reasoning with regard to the applicability to the EU trade mark of the findings made by the Corte d’Appello di Milano (Milan Court of Appeal, Italy) in judgment No 4425/2013, which has become final;

Absent, insufficient and contradictory reasoning with regard to the application of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 to the EU trade mark;

Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 53 of Regulation No 207/2009 — erroneous and contradictory reasoning.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/17


Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case T-44/17)

(2017/C 095/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CAMOMILLA’ — European Union trade mark No 7 077 555

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 in Case R 2250/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

alter the contested decision so that CMT’s application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected in full;

in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that the application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected also in respect of the goods ‘Class 18: articles in these materials (leather and its imitations) not included in other classes, backpacks, key-holders (leather goods), briefcases, wallets, purses not of precious metal, bags, vanity cases, cases and evening bags; Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear, gloves, shawls, stoles, bathrobes’;

in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings before the Court, and order C.M.T. Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl to pay those relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

Infringement of Article 57(3), in conjunction with Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/18


Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)

(Case T-47/17)

(2017/C 095/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Yotrio Group Co. Ltd (Linhai City, China) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Other EU trade mark (Affixing a green ring on a leg) — Application for registration No 14 396 568

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 285/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

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


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/19


Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-49/17)

(2017/C 095/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: V. Ester Casas, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Annul in part the Decision of 15 November 2016 (2016/2018/EU) excluding from European Union funding certain expenditure incurred by various Member States, including the Kingdom of Spain, under the EAGF and EAFRD schemes, in so far as:

1.

As regards the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 1 356 144,90, in respect of the EAGF (Financial year 2012).

2.

As regards the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 2 191 585, in respect of the EAGF (Financial years 2009 to 2012).

3.

As regards the Autonomous Community of Castile and León, the decision excludes from EU funding EUR 9 638 473,73, in respect of the EAGF, and EUR 433 138,10, in respect of the EAFRD (Financial years 2012 to 2013).

4.

The total amount which is the subject of the present application for annulment is EUR 13 619 341,73.

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

Pleas in law concerning the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Andalusia.

The applicant alleges in this respect infringement of Article 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42), in that the Commission found that the entities ACRES and Unión Rural are not producers.

2.

Pleas in law concerning the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The applicant alleges in this respect that:

The single financial correction for errors in the admissibility of expenses in the sum of EUR 122 112,95 (controls concerning the operational programmes: investment in the OP ‘A’) is unlawful since the Commission infringed Articles 105 and 106 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96 (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), in respect of Articles 55(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 52 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), given that the national authorities carried out the controls referred to in the abovementioned articles properly, having respected the requirements of the applicable rules and, in any event, given that there is no risk to the fund.

The flat-rate correction of 5 %, in the sum of EUR 2 191 585 (item: ‘Weaknesses in programme approval and authorisation of expenditure, Autonomous Community of Catalonia’), is unlawful since the Commission infringed Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, in conjunction with Articles 103, 105(2)(d), 106, 107(1)(c) to (e), 108(1)(b) and 109(1)(a) to (c) of Regulation No 1580/2007, in that the Spanish authorities have established compliance with the rules referred to and, in any event, there is no risk to the fund.

In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality by infringement of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Document VI/5330/97 establishing the Guidelines for the calculation of the financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee.

3.

Pleas in law which relate to the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Castile and León. The applicant alleges in this respect that:

The flat-rate correction at 5 % in the sum of EUR 10 071 661,83 and the calculation method used are contrary to Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1) and the Guidelines in Commission Document VI/5530/97 and AGHRI-2005-64043.

In the alternative, the flat-rate correction imposed by the Commission is disproportionate, infringing Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Document VI/5330/97.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/21


Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Austrian Power Grid v ACER

(Case T-53/17)

(2017/C 095/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Austrian Power Grid AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch and S. Huber, lawyers)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the following parts of the Decision of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 06/2016 of 17 November 2016 on the Electricity Transmission System Operator’s proposal for the determination of the Capacity Calculation Regions:

Article 1 of the Decision in conjunction with

Annex I, Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c;

the word ‘also’ and the text block ‘for the purposes of capacity allocation on the affected bidding zone borders until the requirements described in Article 5(3) of this document are fulfilled’ in Annex I, Article 2, paragraph 2, letter e;

Annex I, Article 5, paragraph 1, letter s;

Annex I, Article 5, paragraph 3;

Annex I, Map No 3;

Article 2 of the Decision;

Annex IV;

Annex V;

ACER shall bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that ACER lacks the competence to introduce new bidding zone borders and capacity allocation.

The applicant puts forward that ACER has no competence to introduce new bidding zone borders or capacity allocation in a procedure for the determination of the Capacity Calcul Region (CCR) as specified in Article 15 of the CACM regulation (1), respectively in a decision based on Article 8(1) of the ACER-Regulation (2). Also, so the applicant claims, the indication that the contested decision may be revised as indicated in its Article 2 (which in itself is unlawful and appealed) may not make up for this lack of competence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and the CACM Regulation in several respects.

The applicant puts forward that ACER wrongfully applied the legal definition of congestion and that the DE-AT interconnector is not congested and thus may not be subject to capacity allocation.

The applicant further puts forward that splitting the common electricity market of Germany and Austria is diametrically opposed to the objectives pursued by Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (3) and violates the principle that internal congestions may not be shifted to national borders.

The applicant finally puts forward that the decision is factually incorrect and applies the statutory criteria for the creation of a new bidding zone border in a wrongful manner, especially due to the fact that the DE-AT border is not structurally congested, that ACER does not consider alternative bidding zone borders, that less invasive technical measures would have been available, that the contested decision does not take into account future developments, that the decision violates the specification that bidding zones shall be of permanent nature and that ACER misjudges the nature of loop flows.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates European Union primary law.

The applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of proportionality because less intrusive but equally suitable measures were not considered and enacted.

The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision violates the fundamental freedoms, as the artificial separation of the joint Austrian-German electricity market results in quantitative restrictions on the trade in electricity between both Member States. In this respect, so the applicant states, the contested decision violates the free movement of goods enshrined in Articles 34 and 35 TFUE. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the limitations on transfer capacity resulting from the introduction of a bidding zone border and a capacity allocation mechanism unjustifiably impose restrictions on the applicants’ freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFUE).

Finally, the applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates EU competition law as separating the joint German-Austrian electricity market by introducing a bidding zone and a capacity calculation mechanism (CAM) amounts to market splitting, which is in violation of Article 101 TFUE.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that in issuing the decision, ACER has violated several procedural requirements.

In this context, the applicant puts forward that in erroneously basing its decision on Article 15 of the CACM Regulation, ACER consequently followed the wrong procedure for the creation of new bidding zone borders and for the introduction of CAMs.

The applicant further puts forward that the application submitted by the Austrian regulator, E-Control, requesting that the All TSOs CCR Draft be amended was not dealt with in conformity with the procedure provided for under Article 9(12) of the CACM Regulation.

The applicant further alleges that ACER exceeds its competence by declaring that the non-binding Opinion 09/2015 issued in September 2015 has binding effect. Further, so the applicant claims, as the Opinion that was declared binding did not form part of the consultation procedure, the Claimant’s procedural rights were fundamentally violated.

The applicant further puts forward that ACER’s file for the preparation of the contested decision lacks technical studies, analyses and in-depth assessments. The applicant claims that either the Agency provided the applicant with significantly incomplete information and, by doing so, violated the applicant’s right to full access to the case file according to Article 41 of the Charta of Fundamental Rights, either the Agency did not at all prepare and/or consult technical expertise and analyses in order to put the contested decision on a factually sound basis (which would equally amount to a severe procedural error).

Finally, the applicant puts forward that the contested decision is based on facts that have not been sufficiently clarified since the Agency has in particular — but not only- failed to make observations as to where structural congestion exists in the joint German-Austrian market area and where this would to be managed most efficiently; to what extent loop flows take place and affect the German-Austrian border; what effects current and pending measures relating to network expansion and improving network security have; how much of the electricity flowing to Austria via other Member States subsequently continues to flow from there to Germany.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015, establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ L 197, p. 24).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ L 211, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ L 211, p. 15).


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/23


Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Grupo Orenes v EUIPO — Akamon Entertainment Millenium (Bingo VIVA! Slots)

(Case T-63/17)

(2017/C 095/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Orenes, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Akamon Entertainment Millenium, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bingo VIVA! Slots’ — Application for registration No 13 468 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2016 in Case R 453/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Articles 64, 75, 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction, where appropriate, with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation and Rules 50 and 52 of Regulation 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and also the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting all those provisions.

Failure to make a proper overall comparison of the signs.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/24


Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

(Case T-84/17)

(2017/C 095/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Consorzio IB Innovation (Bentivoglio, Italy) (represented by: A. Masutti and P. Manzini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision, in part or in full, on the basis of the pleas in law relied on;

order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation’s decision of 30 November 2016 (ref: Ares 2016-6711369), whereby the Commission agreed with Lubbock Fine’s Final Report No 14-BA259-027 of 21 November 2016 and consequently found that Consorzio IB Innovation (‘the Consorzio’ or ‘IBI’) was under an obligation to repay EUR 294 925,43 in relation to Contract No 261679-CONTAIN and EUR 155 482,91 in relation to Contract No 288383-ICARGO, and to verify whether there were systemic errors in relation to a series of subsequent contracts.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect and contradictory interpretation of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘third parties’, in breach of the General Agreement (GA) and the General Conditions contained in Annex II to the GA.

The applicant claims in that regard that, bearing in mind the characteristics of the Consorzio, the collective entity that is to be regarded as the beneficiary of the GA consists of all the members of the consortium. Therefore, the consortium members are not third parties in relation to the beneficiary, but part of the beneficiary itself. As such, staff made available by those members to the Consorzio for the tasks referred to in the GA should be regarded as staff of the beneficiary, and must not be mentioned in Annex I, as claimed in the contested decision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no legal basis, contains a contradictory statement of reasons and infringes the principle of sound administration.

The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision must necessarily be based on an express legal rule and not, as in the present case, on a Guide on Financial Issues, issued by the services of the Commission and having no legal force. That decision also disregards the principle of sound administration, which prevents the Commission from adopting measures which are binding on their addressees and are based on an incomplete and contradictory report by an auditor from outside the Commission.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article II.15.2.c of Annex II to the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs.

The applicant claims in that regard that the IBI consultants the reimbursement of whose indirect costs was refused were professionals not engaged by any other body, that is, they were self-employed. Therefore, they are not in either of the situations in respect of which paragraph 2.c of the provision under consideration precludes the reimbursement of costs. If IBI consultants who telework are not in either of the two exceptional situations, they are necessarily subject to the general rule, that is, their indirect costs are subject to the 60 % flat rate rule.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the language rules applicable within the European Union.

The applicant claims in that regard that both the auditor’s report and the defendant’s decision adopting that report are drafted in English, that is, in a language other than IBI’s national language. Therefore, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community has been infringed.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration on the basis of a lack of diligence and care in the examination of the case.

The applicant claims in that regard that in a situation where the Commission delegates to an external auditor the task of analysing the accounting accuracy of projects, the duty of due diligence passes to that auditor. In addition, once the auditor’s report has been received, the principle of sound administration requires the Commission to take particular care in analysing it and endows the Commission with the power to intervene, where appropriate, by altering its content. The Commission has breached that duty of due diligence.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/25


Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-88/17)

(2017/C 095/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul in part, as regards the paying agency of Extremadura, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015), under which that agency was not reimbursed in the sum of EUR 5 364 682,52.

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), amended by Council Regulation No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 144, p. 3), in so far as it does not allow the deduction of a sum of EUR 5 364 682,52 (non-reusable amounts) in the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, if the Court should hold that there is not an infringement of Article 69 of Regulation No 1698/2005, that the defendant’s acts are arbitrary, exceeding the institution’s discretion and also infringing the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


Corrigenda

27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/26


Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials)

( Official Journal of the European Union C 364 of 3 October 2016 , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

(2017/C 095/34)

On page 4, in the table of contents, on page 33 and on page 34, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.


27.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/26


Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission

( Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016 , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

(2017/C 095/35)

On page 4, in the table of contents, and on page 28, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.