22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/1

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

(2017/C 161/01)

Last publication

Past publications

These texts are available on:

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

(Case C-72/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - Validity - Jurisdiction of the Court - EU Russia Partnership Agreement - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa - Access to capital markets - Financial assistance - Global Depositary Receipts - Oil sector - Request for interpretation of concepts of ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 161/02)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

Defendants: Her Majesty’s Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 19, 24 and 40 TEU, Article 275 TFEU, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings, under Article 267 TFEU, on the validity of an act adopted on the basis of provisions relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), such as Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014, provided that the request for a preliminary ruling relates either to the monitoring of that decision’s compliance with Article 40 TEU, or to reviewing the legality of restrictive measures against natural or legal persons;

Examination of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 7 of, and Annex III to, Decision 2014/512, as amended by Decision 2014/872, or of Articles 3 and 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Article 5(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 11 of, and Annexes II and VI to, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014;

The principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from imposing criminal penalties that are to be applied in the event of an infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that regulation, before the scope of those provisions and, therefore, the scope of the associated criminal penalties, has been clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The expression ‘financial assistance’ in Article 4(3)(b) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include the processing of a payment, as such, by a bank or other financial institution;

Article 5(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the issuance, after 12 September 2014, of international certificates representative of share ownership (Global Depositary Receipts), pursuant to a depositary agreement concluded with one of the entities listed in Annex VI to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, including cases where those certificates represent shares issued by one of those entities before that date.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

(Case C-652/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clause - Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Existence of an overriding reason in the public interest justifying new restrictions - Efficient management of migration flows - Requirement for nationals of third countries under 16 years old to hold a residence permit - Proportionality))

(2017/C 161/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of efficient management of migration flows may constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a national measure, introduced after the entry into force of that decision in the Member State in question, requiring nationals of third countries under the age of 16 years old to hold a residence permit in order to enter and reside in that Member State.

Such a measure is not, however, proportionate to the objective pursued where the procedure for its implementation as regards child nationals of third countries born in the Member State in question and one of whose parents is a Turkish worker lawfully residing in that Member State, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, goes beyond what is necessary for attaining that objective.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v DHL Paket GmbH

(Case C-146/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair business practices - Advertisement in a print medium - Omission of material information - Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed - Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party))

(2017/C 161/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DHL Paket GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(4) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an advertisement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which falls within the definition of an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of that directive, may satisfy the obligation regarding information laid down in that provision. It is for the referring court to examine, on a case-by-case basis, first, whether the limitations of space in the advertisement warrant information on the supplier being provided only upon access to the online sales platform and, secondly, whether, so far as the online sales platform is concerned, the information required by Article 7(4)(b) of that directive is communicated simply and quickly.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/4

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

(Case C-315/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - EAFRD financing - Rural development support - Natura 2000 payments - Eligibility limited to private owners - Forest area partially owned by the State))

(2017/C 161/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: József Lingurár

Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 42(1) 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) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a forest area eligible for Natura 2000 support is owned in part by the State and in part by a private owner, account must be taken of the ratio of the size of the part owned by the State to the size of the part owned by that private owner in calculating the amount of support to be paid to the latter.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/5

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

(Case C-335/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Recovery of waste management costs - Polluter-pays principle - Concept of ‘waste holders’ - Price charged for waste management - Special levy intended to finance capital investments))

(2017/C 161/06)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a price calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service, and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection, as well as for the payment by users, in their capacity as waste holders, of an additional levy intended to finance capital investments necessary for the processing of waste, including the recycling thereof. It is, however, incumbent on the referring court to verify, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether this results in the imposition on certain ‘holders’ of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce. Accordingly, the national court may take into account, inter alia, criteria relating to the type of property that the users occupy, its surface area and use, the productive capacity of the ‘holders’, the volume of the containers provided to the users, and the frequency of collection, in so far as those parameters are liable to have a direct impact on the amount of the costs of waste management.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-686/16 P)

(2017/C 161/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and Dr M. Bagh, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2016 (T-776/15);

—	annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2015 (Case R 0531/2015-1);

—	annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 January 2015;

—	order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs of all the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based on a misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with an infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The basis for the claim that the Rules of Procedure were infringed is that the General Court did not base its judgment on the understanding of the word element of the trade mark which had been established in the Board of Appeal’s decision, but applied its own understanding of that word element and thus changed the subject-matter of the proceedings.

The basis for the claim that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 was misinterpreted is that the General Court regards an indication of the geographical origin of a specific type of product that is designated by means of its main constituent material (Meissen Keramik) as descriptive even in relation to goods which contain components — no matter how insignificant — consisting of that material or goods which can be associated with goods of the type designated.

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 17 January 2017 — Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Dolnośląski v Gmina Trzebnica

(Case C-19/17)

(2017/C 161/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Dolnośląski

Defendant: Gmina Trzebnica

Questions referred

Do contributions in kind which a beneficiary receives on account of penalties or indemnities in connection with the non-performance or late performance of an obligation constitute receipts within the meaning of Rule No 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and withdrawing Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003? (1)

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

(a)	Can losses or additional costs incurred by the beneficiary in connection with the non-performance or late performance of a contract by a contractor be deducted from receipts in the form of penalties?

(b)

Does a contribution in kind by the contractor consisting in the performance for the beneficiary of other works which are in no way linked to the object of the financing and which release the contractor from the obligation to pay the contractual penalty (datio in solutum) constitute a receipt within the meaning of Rule No 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and withdrawing Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003?

3.	If the answers to Questions 1 and 2a are in the affirmative, is the amount of the receipt obtained by the beneficiary to be taken to be the amount of the contractual penalty imposed on the contractor or the value of the contribution in kind?

Can the amount of the receipts obtained by the beneficiary during the period of the assistance be deducted from the co-financing after the closure of the assistance within the meaning of Rule No 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and withdrawing Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003?

5.	If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, can the amount of the receipts obtained by the beneficiary be deducted from the co-financing where those receipts were not notified to the Commission by the Member State before the closure of the assistance?

(1) OJ 2004 L 72, p. 66.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

(Case C-30/17)

(2017/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

Respondent: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

Question referred

In the light of Article 3(1) and the objectives of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) in the determination of the basis of assessment for flavoured beers using the Plato scale, must the extract resulting from the flavourings added following the completion of fermentation be added to the real extract of the finished product or is the extract resulting from the added substances to be disregarded?

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

(Case C-66/17)

(2017/C 161/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś

Defendant: DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

Question referred

Should Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (1) … (‘Regulation No 805/2004’), read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that a European Enforcement Order certificate may be issued in respect of a decision concerning reimbursement of the costs of proceedings contained in a judgment in which a court has established the existence of a right?

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

(Case C-81/17)

(2017/C 161/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Zabrus Siret SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

Questions referred

Does Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) together with the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an administrative practice and/or an interpretation of the provisions of national legislation precluding the assessment and recognition of the right to reimbursement of VAT resulting from adjustments in respect of transactions carried out during a period, preceding the most recent inspection period, which has already been the subject of a tax inspection and in which the tax authorities did not find any anomalies that were such as to alter the taxable amount for VAT, notwithstanding the fact that those provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may review a period which has previously been the subject of a tax inspection in the light of additional data and information obtained subsequently as a result of cooperation between State authorities and institutions?

Must Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national rules of a legislative nature which deny the possibility of correcting substantive errors in VAT returns for tax periods which have already been the subject of a tax inspection, the only exception being where the correction is made on the basis of a notice communicated by the tax inspectorate at the time of the previous inspection?

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/9

Appeal brought on 22 February 2017 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-95/17 P)

(2017/C 161/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd; Société des produits Nestlé SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Contested Judgment,

—	order Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd to bear the costs incurred by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Violation of Article 36, first sentence, of the Statute of the Court of Justice

The General Court based its Judgment on contradictory reasoning while accepting, on the one hand, that ‘proof may be adduced globally for all the Member States concerned’ and requiring, on the other hand, that the acquisition of distinctive character be established in each and every Member State, individually (see paragraph 139 of the Contested Judgment).

Violation of Articles 7(3) and 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

The General Court misapplied the Court of Justice’s guidance as set out in its Judgment of 24 May 2012, Case C-98/11P, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG/OHIM, (Shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon), ECLI:EU:C:2012:307, at paragraphs 62 and 63 (hereafter the ‘Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli Judgment’) in requiring proof of the acquisition of distinctive character be established in each and every Member

State, individually.

The General Court should have examined whether the evidence submitted by the EU trade mark proprietor establishes acquisition of distinctive character in the European Union as a whole, irrespective of national borders.

By focusing exclusively on national markets, the General Court wrongly ignored that the territorial extent of the recognition of the mark is only one of the relevant factors when determining whether this mark has acquired distinctive character through use in the European Union. The General Court thus failed to have regard to criteria which are relevant in the context of a ‘single market’, in particular (i) the proportion of the public which has been shown to be familiarised with the mark compared to the European consumers as a whole; (ii) the geographical importance and repartition of the areas in which acquired distinctive character was established; and (iii) the economic importance of the areas in which acquired distinctive character was established for the European market of the goods and services at issue.

The Contested Judgment’s approach cannot be justified by the public interest underlying the absolute ground for cancellation at issue. There are safeguarding measures which balance the possibility for the proprietor of an EU trade mark to enforce the exclusive rights even in Member States in which the EU trade mark has not acquired the same level of distinctive character as in other Member States.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 February 2017 — Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

(Case C-103/17)

(2017/C 161/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair

Defendants: Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

Questions referred

In the case where a Member State has not, following the entry into force of Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003, (1) initially laid down any provision creating an excise duty on the consumption of electricity, but has maintained in force a previously-created indirect tax on such consumption, in addition to local taxes:

—

is the compatibility of the tax in question with Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (2) and with [Directive 2003/96/EC] of 27 October 2003 to be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down by Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC for the existence of ‘another indirect tax’, that is to say, the pursuit of one or more specific purposes and compliance with certain tax rules applicable to excise duty or value added tax?

—

or is it possible to retain ‘another indirect tax’ only where a harmonised excise duty exists and finally, if so, could the contribution in question be regarded as being such a duty, its compatibility with those two directives thus falling to be assessed in the light of all of the harmonising rules which they lay down?

Is a contribution based on the consumption of electricity, the revenue from which is allocated both to the financing of expenditure connected with the generation of electricity from renewable sources and cogeneration and to the implementation of a geographical price-balancing mechanism and a reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, to be regarded as pursuing specific purposes within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC, as restated in Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC? (3)

In the event that only some of the purposes pursued can be characterised as specific within the meaning of those provisions, can taxpayers nonetheless claim full reimbursement of the contribution at issue, or may they claim only a partial reimbursement based on the proportion of the overall expenditure financed by the contribution which did not relate to a specific purpose?

If the answer to the preceding questions is such that the system of contribution to the public electricity service is, in whole or in part, incompatible with the rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, is the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Directive 2003/96/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down by Directive 2003/96/EC was, among the rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on France?

(1) Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

(2) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Aviabaltika v BAB Ūkio bankas

(Case C-107/17)

(2017/C 161/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: UAB Aviabaltika

Other party in the appeal in cassation: BAB Ūkio bankas

Questions referred

Must Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 (1) be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Member States to establish legal rules which provide that financial collateral is not included in the assets remaining after the insolvency of the collateral taker (a bank in the process of being wound up)? In other words, are Member States obliged to establish legal rules which require that a collateral taker (a bank) should be de facto able to obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), despite the fact that the enforcement event occurred after the commencement of the proceedings for the winding-up of the collateral taker (the bank)?

Should Article 4(1) and 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 be systematically interpreted as conferring on the collateral provider the right to demand that the collateral taker (the bank) should primarily obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), by using the financial collateral, and accordingly as imposing an obligation on the financial collateral taker to give effect to such a demand despite the commencement of proceedings for its winding-up?

If the answer to the second question is in the negative, and the collateral provider satisfies the claim of the collateral taker, which is secured by the financial collateral, by using other assets of the collateral provider, should the provisions of Directive 2002/47, in particular Articles 4 and 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the collateral provider should also have applied to it an exemption from equal treatment of the collateral taker’s (the bank’s) creditors in winding-up proceedings and that the collateral provider should, in order to recover the financial collateral, be granted priority over other creditors in winding-up proceedings?

(1) Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB ‘Enteco Baltic’ v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-108/17)

(2017/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Enteco Baltic’

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred

Is Article 143(2) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in Article 143(1)(d) of that directive solely because at the time of importation the goods were planned to be supplied to one VAT payer and therefore its VAT identification number was specified in the import declaration, but later, after a change in circumstances, the goods were transported to another taxable person (VAT payer) and the public authority was provided with full information about the identity of the actual purchaser?

In circumstances such as those of the present case, can Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that documents that have not been disproved (e-AD [electronic administrative document] consignment notes and e-ROR [electronic report of receipt] confirmations) confirming transport of the goods from a tax warehouse in the territory of one Member State to a tax warehouse in another Member State may be regarded as sufficient proof of transportation of the goods to another Member State?

Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in that provision if the right of disposal was transferred to the purchaser of the goods not directly, but via the persons specified by it (transport undertakings/tax warehouses)?

Does an administrative practice conflict with the principle of neutrality of VAT and of the protection of legitimate expectations where under that practice the interpretation differs as to what is to be regarded as a transfer of the right of disposal, and as to what evidence must be submitted to substantiate such a transfer, according to whether Article 167 or Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive is applicable?

Does the scope of the principle of good faith in relation to the levying of VAT also encompass the right of persons to exemption from import VAT (under Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive) in cases such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, where the customs office denies the right of a taxable person to exemption from import VAT on the basis that the conditions for further supply of goods within the European Union (Article 138 of the VAT Directive) were not complied with?

Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting an administrative practice of Member States under which the assumption that (i) the right of disposal was not transferred to a specific contractual partner and (ii) that the taxpayer knew or could have known about possible VAT fraud committed by the contractual partner is based on the fact that the undertaking communicated with the contractual partners by electronic means of communication and that it was established when the investigation was carried out by a tax authority that the contractual partners did not operate at the addresses specified and did not declare the VAT on the transactions with the taxable person?

Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, although the duty to substantiate the right to a tax exemption falls on the taxpayer, this does not, however, mean that the competent public authority deciding the issue of transfer of the right of disposal has no obligation to collect information accessible only to public authorities?

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 March 2017 — Bankia S.A. v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

(Case C-109/17)

(2017/C 161/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia S.A.

Defendants: Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

Questions referred

Must Directive 2005/29/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that currently regulating Spanish mortgage enforcement — Article 695 et seq. in conjunction with Article 552(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) — which does not provide for the review by the courts, of their own motion or even at the request of one of the parties, of unfair commercial practices, is contrary to Article 11 of that directive because that national legislation hinders or prevents review by the courts of contracts or acts which may contain unfair commercial practices?

Must Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the Spanish law which does not ensure actual compliance with the code of conduct if the party seeking enforcement of a debt decides not to apply that code (Articles 5 and 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012) is contrary to Article 11 of that directive?

Must Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as precluding Spanish national legislation which does not allow a consumer, during mortgage enforcement proceedings, to request compliance with a code of conduct, in particular as regards the giving of a property in payment and extinguishment of the debt — Point 3 of the Annex to Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012, Code of Good Practice?

(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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

(Case C-129/17)

(2017/C 161/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

Questions referred

(a)

Do Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) cover the right of the trade-mark proprietor to oppose the removal, by a third party, without the consent of the trade-mark proprietor, of all signs identical to the trade marks which had been applied to the goods (debranding), in the case where the goods concerned have never previously been traded within the European Economic Area, such as goods placed in a customs warehouse, and where the removal by the third party occurs with a view to importing or placing those goods on the market within the European Economic Area?

(b)	Does it make any difference to the answer to Question (a) above whether the importation of those goods or their placing on the market within the European Economic Area occurs under its own distinctive sign applied by the third party (rebranding)?

2.	Does it make any difference to the answer to the first question whether the goods thus imported or placed on the market are, on the basis of their outward appearance or model, still identified by the relevant average consumer as originating from the trade-mark proprietor?

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/14

Appeal brought on 24 March 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 February 2017 in Case T-479/14, Kendrion v European Union

(Case C-150/17 P)

(2017/C 161/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kendrion NV, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

—	annul point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

—	reject Kendrion’s claim at first instance for compensation in respect of the material damage allegedly suffered or, in the furthest alternative, reduce that claim for compensation to EUR 175 709,87;

—	order Kendrion to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds.

The first ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of a causal link, in so far the General Court found that the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period was the decisive cause of the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges, whereas an undertaking’s own choice not to pay the fine during the course of the proceedings before the EU Courts is, according to settled case-law, the decisive cause of the payment of such charges.

The second ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of damage, in so far as the General Court refused to apply to the alleged material damage — relating to the payment of the charges for bank guarantees — the same condition as that which it had formulated for the alleged damage in relation to the payment of interest on the amount of the fine, namely that the applicant at first instance had to show that the financial burden linked to that latter payment was greater than the benefit which it might have derived from not paying the fine.

The third ground alleges an error in law in the determination of the period in which the alleged damage occurred and an inadequate statement of reasons, in so far as the General Court, without setting out reasons for so finding, found that the period in which the material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee charges occurred could have differed from the period in which the General Court had situated the unlawful conduct that had allegedly resulted in that damage.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-151/17)

(2017/C 161/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swedish Match AB

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Questions referred

Are Articles 1(c) and 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) invalid by reason of:

i.	breach of the EU general principle of non-discrimination;

ii.	breach of the EU general principle of proportionality;

iii.	breach of Article 5(3) TEU and the EU principle of subsidiarity;

iv.	breach of Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’);

v.	breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and

vi.	breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-170/17)

(2017/C 161/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by N. Yerrell and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

Declare that, by issuing special national driving licences for driving vehicles of the AM harmonized category, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. (1)

2.	Declare that, by failing to ensure that a person holds one driving licence only, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(b) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.

3.	Order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards the obligations of the Portuguese Republic under Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 7(2)(a) and under Article 7(5)(b) of the Directive, the Commission considers that the Portuguese Republic has not taken the necessary measures before expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Moreover, the Portuguese administration, by stating in its letter of 15 December 2016 that it will carry out future legislative amendments in this respect, itself acknowledges that it has not taken such measures.

(1) OJ 2006, L 403, p. 18.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union

(Case C-174/17 P)

(2017/C 161/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á.M. Almendros Manzano and P. Giusta, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA), Armando Álvarez S.A. and European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

—	dismiss as unfounded the claim brought by ASPLA and Armando Álvarez at first instance seeking payment of an amount of EUR 3 495 038,66 as compensation for the damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time;

—	order ASPLA and Armando Álvarez to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of causal relationship, in that the General Court held that the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage, consisting of the payment of the bank guarantee charges, whereas, in accordance with settled case-law, the determining cause of the payment of those charges is the choice made by an undertaking itself not to pay the fine during the proceedings before the EU judicature.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of damage, in that the General Court did not apply to the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of the bank guarantee charges the same condition which it imposed in respect of the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of interest on the fine, namely, that the applicants at first instance had to show that the financial burden resulting from the latter payment was greater than the advantage conferred on them by not paying the fine.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/19

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — CPME and Others v Council

(Case T-422/13) (1)

((Dumping - Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand - Expiry review - Commission proposal to renew measures - Council decision to terminate the review without imposing measures - Action for annulment - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Likelihood of recurrence of material injury - Article 21(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Interest of the European Union - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Action for damages))

(2017/C 161/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (Brussels, Belgium) and the other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

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

Interveners in support of the applicants: European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland, A. Demeneix and M. França, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW) (Brussels, Belgium), Caiba, SA (Paterna, Spain), Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB) (Anderlecht, Belgium), Danone (Paris, France), Nestlé Waters Management & Technology (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Pepsico International Ltd (London, United Kingdom), and Refresco Gerber BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: E. McGovern, Barrister)

Re:

Application (i) under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013 L 136, p. 12), inasmuch as it rejected the proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand and terminated the review proceeding concerning those imports, and, (ii), under Article 268 TFEU for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand, inasmuch as it rejected the proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand and terminated the review proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from those three countries;

2.	Dismisses the claims for compensation;

Orders the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química, SA, Equipolymers Srl, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, M & G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet, SA, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group and UAB Orion Global pet to bear their own costs, except for those referred to in paragraph (5) below;

4.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs;

Orders the European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), Caiba, SA, Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium (CCEB), Danone, Nestlé Waters Management & Technology, Pepsico International Ltd and Refresco Gerber BV to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the applicants by virtue of their intervention;

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

(1) OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/20

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission

(Case T-219/14) (1)

((State aid - Maritime transport - Public service compensation - Capital increase - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered - Liquidation of the recipient undertaking - Continued interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate - Concept of aid - Service of general economic interest - Private investor test - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Decision 2011/21/EU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation - Altmark judgment))

(2017/C 161/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) (represented by: T. Ledda, S. Sau, G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented initially by F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti and A. Neri, and subsequently by M. Merola, B. Carnevale and M. Toniolo, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 concerning aid measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) granted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy) to the maritime company Saremar in the form of public service compensation and a capital increase, in so far as that decision found those measures to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered that it be recovered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/21

Judgment of the General Court of (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Saremar v Commission

(Case T-220/14) (1)

((State aid - Maritime transport - Public service compensation - Capital increase - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered - Liquidation of the applicant - Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Continued interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate - Concept of aid - Service of general economic interest - Private investor test - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Decision 2011/21/EU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation - Altmark judgment))

(2017/C 161/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Saremar — Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan, and A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented initially by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti and A. Neri, and subsequently by M. Merola, B. Carnevale and M. Toniolo, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 concerning aid measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) granted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy) to Saremar in the form of public service compensation and a capital increase, in so far as that decision found those measures to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered that it be recovered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Saremar — Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA.

(1) OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/21

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — HB and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of stray animals - Psychological effects on adults and children - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011))

(2017/C 161/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: HB (Linz, Austria) and the six other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially C. Kolar, and subsequently by F. Moyse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2119 final of 26 March 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders HB and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/22

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-35/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 161/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as the name of the applicant has been included in the list of the persons and bodies to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they concern Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

2.	Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

(1) OJ C 89 of 16.3.2015.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — France v Commission

(Case T-344/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents sent under the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC - Documents originating from a Member State - Access granted - Exception for the protection of court proceedings - Exception for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations or audits - Prior agreement of the Member State))

(2017/C 161/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, and subsequently by D. Colas and B. Fodda, and then by D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares (2015) 1681819 of 21 April 2015, granting to a citizen access to documents sent by the French Republic in accordance with the procedure laid down in 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 (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the French Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the action for interim measures;

3.	Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Renfe-Operadora v EUIPO (AVE)

(Case T-367/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AVE - Partial invalidity - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Application for restitutio in integrum - Duty of due care))

(2017/C 161/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and M.I. Hernández Sandoval, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 712/2014-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/24

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance)

(Case T-594/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH (Isen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2015 (Case R 2156/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Metabolic Balance as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/25

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Tractel Greifzug v EUIPO — Shenxi Machinery (Shape of a motor-driven rope winch)

(Case T-621/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a motor-driven rope winch - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tractel Greifzug GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and C. Maierhöfer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Shenxi Machinery Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China) (represented by: C. Vossius, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1658/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shenxi Machinery and Tractel Greifzug.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Tractel Greifzug GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3.	Orders Shenxi Machinery Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/25

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO — Fink (NANA FINK)

(Case T-39/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NANA FINK - Earlier EU word mark NANA - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Duty to rule on the entirety of the action))

(2017/C 161/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nadine Fink (Basel, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Ms Fink.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2015 (Case R 679/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Nadine Fink, in so far as the Board of Appeal failed to rule on the action before it with regard to ‘precious metals and their alloys’ in Class 14 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and covered by the figurative mark which was the subject of International Registration No 1111651 designating the European Union;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/26

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)

(Case T-49/16) (1)

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

(2017/C 161/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Azanta A/S to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/27

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

(Case T-178/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor - Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 346/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt and Policolor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Policolor SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/27

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE)

(Case T-219/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 (Case R 507/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ViSAGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/28

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environment

(Case T-238/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default))

(2017/C 161/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Scouring Environment SARL (Tauriac, France)

Re:

Action brought on the basis of Article 272 TFEU for an order that Scouring Environment repay the sum advanced under Grant Agreement No 287071, together with default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders Scouring Environment SARL to repay the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 60 000, together with accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 3,65 % per annum from 12 September 2014 until the date of full payment of the amount due;

2.	Orders Scouring Environment to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/28

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two lines forming an acute angle)

(Case T-291/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two lines forming an acute angle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2016 (Case R 1292/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two lines forming an acute angle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Anta (China) Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/29

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA

(Case T-348/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities - Minatran contract - Eligible costs - Procedure by default))

(2017/C 161/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt in ERCEA debit note numbered 3241606289, of 26 May 2016, that the applicant repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that the debt in European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26 May 2016, that Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs;

Declares that partial recovery by way of compensation, to the amount of EUR 132 192,12 of the debt claimed is contrary to grant agreement No 211166 concluded on 18 August 2008 for the implementation of the Minatran project and to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

3)	Orders the ERCEA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/30

Order of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p)

(Case T-407/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 161/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pledgeling LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 1693/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Banco Popular Español, SA and Pledgeling LLC.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Banco Popular Español, SA shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/30

Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission

(Case T-170/17)

(2017/C 161/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	set aside the decision of 2 March 2017 whereby the applicant is automatically retired with effect from 1 June 2017;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of Articles 47 and 52 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant had not yet reached the statutory retirement age at the time that the contested decision was adopted.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the scope of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the defendant was of the view that that provision applied to officials who, although having reached the retirement age (that is to say that they may apply for retirement without a reduction to their pension rights), have not yet reached the age at which the appointing authority is required to retire them (ex officio).

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the defendant did not give any sufficient indication enabling the applicant or the General Court to review the merits of the statement that it had carried out an in-depth analysis of the needs of the Commission’s other services, whereby it concluded that a new post in one of those services corresponding to the applicant’s current skills could not be provided for.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/31

Action brought on 16 March 2017 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-173/17)

(2017/C 161/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, and J. Stevenson, barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review of Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2016/1215, (1) (EU) 2016/1216, (2) and (EU) 2016/1217 (3) of 22 July 2016, granting market authorisations under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) (the ‘GM Regulation’) in respect of the genetically modified soybeans FG 72, MON 87708 x MON 89788 and MON 87705 x MON 89788, respectively;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies essentially on a single plea in law arguing that the Commission failed to observe the obligations imposed on it by the GM Regulation, in particular Articles 14 and 16 thereof, by failing to conduct the appropriate full safety assessments before granting market authorisation or to ensure effective post-authorisation monitoring.

The Commission was mistaken in relying on the relevant EU law concerning the control of pesticides as it fails specifically to regulate genetically modified organisms.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1215 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 16).

(2) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1216 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø8-9 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 22).

(3) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1217 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø5-6 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 28).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/32

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)

(Case T-180/17)

(2017/C 161/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (Okinawa, Japan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Fischer GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany), Ole Weinkath (Hünxe-Drevenack, Germany), Multikraft Produktions- und Handels GmbH (Pichl/Wels, Austria), Phytodor AG (Buochs, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International word mark ‘EM’ — No 2 829 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 2442/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 145 and the first sentence of Article 57(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/32

Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)

(Case T-182/17)

(2017/C 161/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AKANTO’ — Application for registration No 13 289 781

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 531/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (European trade mark No 13 289 781) in respect of the goods in class 5 described in the application for registration;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/33

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Representation of four green squares)

(Case T-184/17)

(2017/C 161/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the EU figurative mark (Representation of four green squares) — Application No 14 781 819

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 1115/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/34

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-185/17)

(2017/C 161/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—	annul the ECHA’s decision, published on 12 January 2017, to include Bisphenol A in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as a substance of very high concern in accordance with Article 59 of the REACH Regulation;

—	order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

—	take such other or further measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation.

—

The contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, the ‘REACH Regulation’), since intermediate uses are exempt from the entire Title VII pursuant to Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation, and are thus outside the scope of Articles 57 and 59 and outside the scope of authorisation.

Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant submits that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion of intermediate uses in the candidate list exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the European Chemicals Agency could have had recourse.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment, by failing to take into consideration the information at its disposal showing the uses of BPA as an intermediate.

—	The European Chemicals Agency failed to take into account the information that was made available in the Annex XV dossier for BPA under the REACH Regulation.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/34

Action brought on 23 March 2017 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T-186/17)

(2017/C 161/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallapop, SL (Barcelona, 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 ‘wallapop’ — Application for registration No 13 268 941

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 in the Cases R 2350/2015-5 and R 2530/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Deliver a judgment amending the contested decision by rejecting the registration of the European Union mark ‘wallapop’ (No 13 268 941) for the following services in Class 35: ‘Online trading, namely operation of online markets for buyers and sellers of goods and services; online trading services in which sellers post products or services to be offered for sale and purchasing or bidding is done via the Internet in order to facilitate the sale of goods and services by others via a computer network; providing evaluative feedback and ratings of sellers’ goods and services, the value and prices of sellers’ goods and services, buyers’ and sellers’ performance, delivery, and overall trading experience in connection therewith; Providing a searchable online advertising guide featuring the goods and services of online vendors; Providing a searchable online evaluation database for buyers and sellers; Market research services; Research, providing of reports, consultancy and advice relating to market behaviour; Providing of business information relating to goods and/or services, and evaluation and classification of the aforesaid goods and services, and of the purchasers and sellers of the aforesaid goods and/or services; Seeking, compilation, systemisation, processing and providing of business information for others’.

—	Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of Article 8 Regulation No 207/2009. In particular, it is stated in that regard that, in its decision, the Board of Appeal did not correctly interpret that provision in relation to the conflicting services in the WALA and WALLAPOP trademarks, in the light of the interpretative criteria arising from the judgment of 29 September 1998 in Case C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (EU:C:1998:442).

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/35

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)

(Case T-187/17)

(2017/C 161/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Mega Liner’ — Application No 14 473 094

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 442/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision, in so far as that decision dismisses the appeal;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/36

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)

(Case T-188/17)

(2017/C 161/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Coil Liner’ — Application for registration No 14 473 193

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 443/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

—	Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a hip ball)

(Case T-193/17)

(2017/C 161/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in pink (Shape of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 179

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 929/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Articles 59 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/37

Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Representation of a hip ball)

(Case T-194/17)

(2017/C 161/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative colour mark in pink (Representation of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 928/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Articles 59 and 83 of Regulation No. 207/2009.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/38

Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO

(Case T-199/17)

(2017/C 161/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of EUIPO of 2 June 2016, notified to the applicant on 3 June 2016, to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a temporary Agent pursuant to Article 2(f) CEOS; and

—	order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Article 110 SR, Article 2(f) and 8 CEOS.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty and its duty of care.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR)).

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b).

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 2001, p. 1)

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission

(Case T-204/17)

(2017/C 161/55)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, People's Republic of China) (represented by: A. Johansson and C. Dackö, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul in part Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (‘the implementing regulation’) insofar as it covers stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings which have a surface roughness average of under 0,8 micrometres on the inside of the tube and pipe butt-welding fittings but not on the outside;

—	In the alternative, annul the implementing regulation insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—	In the further alternative, annul the implementing regulation in its entirety; and

—	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 disregard of the rights of the defence.

The applicant submits that the product scope of the investigation was changed between the revised final disclosure document and the adoption of the implementing regulation, to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant submits that the Commission subsequently explained that a material change had been envisaged. The applicant was not given the opportunity of commenting on the change before the regulation entered into force. The applicant claims that the Commission did not, at any stage of the investigation, inform the parties concerned that the surface roughness requirement for products to avoid the application of customs duties could apply to both the products’ interior and exterior surfaces, departing from the European product standards for sanitary fittings. Thus the applicant had the legitimate expectation that the product exclusion corresponds to the stated objective of excluding sanitary fittings, and was thereby deprived of any real opportunity of commenting on the scope of the product exclusion.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the duty to state reasons.

The applicant submits that at no stage were reasons given for the distinction which the Commission draws between sanitary fittings with an interior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres and an exterior surface roughness of over 0,8 micrometres, on the one hand, and sanitary fittings with both an interior and exterior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres, on the other. The applicant claims that the introduction of such a distinction means that the grounds given by the Commission for the product exclusion are illogical and inconsistent with the product scope in Article 1 of the implementing regulation.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

The applicant submits that the distinction made between different sanitary fittings does not appear to have been preceded by a careful examination but appears merely to be the result of an unsubstantiated request from a party involved at a much later stage of the investigation. The applicant claims that, by failing to investigate further the consequences of such a distinction and how it affects the achievement of the objective stated in the recitals of the implementing regulation, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to examine carefully and impartially the relevant aspects.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when, with the intention of excluding sanitary fittings which do not compete with the EU industry’s industrial fittings, it laid down the criteria for exclusion leading to the exclusion of only a small part of the sanitary fittings used inside the EU. The majority of sanitary fittings are thus subject to customs duties even though they are not in competition with the EU industry products. The applicant claims that the Commission has drawn clearly incorrect conclusions from the material received and has also relied on incorrect information.

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — SSP Europe v EUIPO (SECURE DATA SPACE)

(Case T-205/17)

(2017/C 161/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SSP Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘SECURE DATA SPACE’ — Application No 14 056 998

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2017 in Case R 2467/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision (notified on 9 February 2017);

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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

22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)

(Case T-210/17)

(2017/C 161/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRIPLE TURBO’ — Application for registration No 13 140 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 119/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 161

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 60 22 May 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 161/01	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 161/02	Case C-72/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 — Validity — Jurisdiction of the Court — EU Russia Partnership Agreement — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa — Access to capital markets — Financial assistance — Global Depositary Receipts — Oil sector — Request for interpretation of concepts of shale and waters deeper than 150 metres — Inadmissibility)	2
2017/C 161/03	Case C-652/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Furkan Tekdemir, legally represented by Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Existence of an overriding reason in the public interest justifying new restrictions — Efficient management of migration flows — Requirement for nationals of third countries under 16 years old to hold a residence permit — Proportionality)	3
2017/C 161/04	Case C-146/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v DHL Paket GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair business practices — Advertisement in a print medium — Omission of material information — Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed — Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party)	4
2017/C 161/05	Case C-315/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — EAFRD financing — Rural development support — Natura 2000 payments — Eligibility limited to private owners — Forest area partially owned by the State)	4
2017/C 161/06	Case C-335/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Directive 2008/98/EC — Recovery of waste management costs — Polluter-pays principle — Concept of waste holders — Price charged for waste management — Special levy intended to finance capital investments)	5
2017/C 161/07	Case C-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	6
2017/C 161/08	Case C-19/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 17 January 2017 — Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Dolnośląski v Gmina Trzebnica	6
2017/C 161/09	Case C-30/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu	7
2017/C 161/10	Case C-66/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG	8
2017/C 161/11	Case C-81/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava	8
2017/C 161/12	Case C-95/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2017 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office	9
2017/C 161/13	Case C-103/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 February 2017 — Messer France SAS, as successor in title to Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’économie et des finances, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer	10
2017/C 161/14	Case C-107/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Aviabaltika v BAB Ūkio bankas	11
2017/C 161/15	Case C-108/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Enteco Baltic v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos	12
2017/C 161/16	Case C-109/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 March 2017 — Bankia S.A. v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino	13
2017/C 161/17	Case C-129/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 March 2017 — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA	14
2017/C 161/18	Case C-150/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 February 2017 in Case T-479/14, Kendrion v European Union	14
2017/C 161/19	Case C-151/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health	15
2017/C 161/20	Case C-170/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic	16
2017/C 161/21	Case C-174/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union	16
2017/C 161/22	Case C-167/15: Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri	17
2017/C 161/23	Case C-136/16: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 10 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Sociedade Metropolitana de Desenvolvimento SA v Banco Santander Totta SA	17
2017/C 161/24	Case C-229/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro	18
2017/C 161/25	Case C-511/16: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic	18
	General Court
2017/C 161/26	Case T-422/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — CPME and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand — Expiry review — Commission proposal to renew measures — Council decision to terminate the review without imposing measures — Action for annulment — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Likelihood of recurrence of material injury — Article 21(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Interest of the European Union — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Action for damages)	19
2017/C 161/27	Case T-219/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Public service compensation — Capital increase — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered — Liquidation of the recipient undertaking — Continued interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate — Concept of aid — Service of general economic interest — Private investor test — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Decision 2011/21/EU — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation — Altmark judgment)	20
2017/C 161/28	Case T-220/14: Judgment of the General Court of (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Saremar v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Public service compensation — Capital increase — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered — Liquidation of the applicant — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Continued interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate — Concept of aid — Service of general economic interest — Private investor test — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Decision 2011/21/EU — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation — Altmark judgment)	21
2017/C 161/29	Case T-361/14: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — HB and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Protection of stray animals — Psychological effects on adults and children — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011)	21
2017/C 161/30	Case T-35/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)	22
2017/C 161/31	Case T-344/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — France v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents sent under the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC — Documents originating from a Member State — Access granted — Exception for the protection of court proceedings — Exception for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations or audits — Prior agreement of the Member State)	23
2017/C 161/32	Case T-367/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Renfe-Operadora v EUIPO (AVE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark AVE — Partial invalidity — Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Application for restitutio in integrum — Duty of due care)	23
2017/C 161/33	Case T-594/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	24
2017/C 161/34	Case T-621/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Tractel Greifzug v EUIPO — Shenxi Machinery (Shape of a motor-driven rope winch) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a motor-driven rope winch — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	25
2017/C 161/35	Case T-39/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO — Fink (NANA FINK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NANA FINK — Earlier EU word mark NANA — No similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Duty to rule on the entirety of the action)	25
2017/C 161/36	Case T-49/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL — Earlier EU word mark NEORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	26
2017/C 161/37	Case T-178/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor — Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)	27
2017/C 161/38	Case T-219/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	27
2017/C 161/39	Case T-238/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environment (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)	28
2017/C 161/40	Case T-291/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Anta (China) v EUIPO (Representation of two lines forming an acute angle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing two lines forming an acute angle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)	28
2017/C 161/41	Case T-348/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities — Minatran contract — Eligible costs — Procedure by default)	29
2017/C 161/42	Case T-407/16: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2017 — Banco Popular Español v EUIPO — Pledgeling (p) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)	30
2017/C 161/43	Case T-170/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission	30
2017/C 161/44	Case T-173/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — TestBioTech v Commission	31
2017/C 161/45	Case T-180/17: Action brought on 17 March 2017 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)	32
2017/C 161/46	Case T-182/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)	32
2017/C 161/47	Case T-184/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Representation of four green squares)	33
2017/C 161/48	Case T-185/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA	34
2017/C 161/49	Case T-186/17: Action brought on 23 March 2017 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)	34
2017/C 161/50	Case T-187/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)	35
2017/C 161/51	Case T-188/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)	36
2017/C 161/52	Case T-193/17: Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a hip ball)	37
2017/C 161/53	Case T-194/17: Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Representation of a hip ball)	37
2017/C 161/54	Case T-199/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO	38
2017/C 161/55	Case T-204/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission	39
2017/C 161/56	Case T-205/17: Action brought on 4 April 2017 — SSP Europe v EUIPO (SECURE DATA SPACE)	40
2017/C 161/57	Case T-210/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)	40