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

(2018/C 259/01)

Last publication

OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

Past publications

OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Kenzo

(Joined Cases C-85/16 P and C-86/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Applications for registration of the word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier EU word mark KENZO - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) - Relative ground for refusal of registration - Reputation - Due cause))

(2018/C 259/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, M. Ring and W. von der Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Kenzo (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti, F. Rossi and N. Parotta, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeals;

2.	Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) (C-259/16), Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporti Automobilistici (C-259/16), Fercam SpA(C-259/16), Associazione non Riconosciuta Alsea (C-259/16), Associazione Fedit (C-259/16), Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali Srl (C-259/16), Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali — Fedespedi (C-259/16), Tnt Global Express SpA (C-259/16), Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) (C-260/16), DHL Express (Italy) Srl (C-260/16), Federal Express Europe Inc. (C-260/16), United Parcel Service Italia Ups Srl (C-260/16) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Joined Cases C-259/16 and C-260/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Postal services in the European Union - Directive 97/67/EC - Articles 2, 7 and 9 - Directive 2008/6/EC - Definition of ‘postal service provider’ - Haulage, freight-forwarding and express mail undertakings providing services involving the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal items - Authorisation required for the provision of postal services to the public - Contribution to the costs of providing universal service))

(2018/C 259/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) (C-259/16), Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporti Automobilistici (C-259/16), Fercam SpA (C-259/16), Associazione non Riconosciuta Alsea (C-259/16), Associazione Fedit (C-259/16), Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali Srl (C-259/16), Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali — Fedespedi (C-259/16), Tnt Global Express SpA (C-259/16), Associazione Italiana dei Corrieri Aerei Internazionali (AICAI) (C-260/16), DHL Express (Italy) Srl (C-260/16), Federal Express Europe Inc. (C-260/16), United Parcel Service Italia Ups Srl (C-260/16)

Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Intervening party: Poste Italiane SpA (C-260/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 2(1), (1a) and (6) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which haulage, freight-forwarding and express mail undertakings providing services involving the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal items constitute, except where their business is limited to the transport of postal items, postal service providers within the meaning of Article 2(1a) of the directive.

2.

Articles 2(19) and 9(1) of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires all undertakings providing haulage, freight-forwarding and express mail services to hold a general authorisation for the provision of postal services, provided that such legislation is justified by one of the essential requirements set out in Article 2(19) of the directive and has due regard for the principle of proportionality, in that it is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

3.

Articles 7(4) and 9(2) of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires holders of a general authorisation for the provision of postal services to contribute to a compensation fund for universal service obligations, where, from a user’s perspective, those services may be regarded as falling within the scope of the universal service as they display inter-changeability to a sufficient degree with the universal service.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.6.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara — Italy) — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

(Case C-370/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Privileges and immunities of the European Union - Protocol No 7 - Article 1 - Whether or not prior authorisation from the Court is necessary - Structural Funds - EU financial assistance - Attachment proceedings against a national authority to attach sums deriving from that assistance))

(2018/C 259/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Novara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bruno Dell’Acqua

Defendant: Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

Intervening parties: Renato Quattrocchi, Antonella Pozzoli, Loris Lucini, Diego Chierici, Nicoletta Malaraggia, Elio Zonca, Sonia Fusi, Danilo Cattaneo, Alberto Terraneo, Luigi Luzzi

Operative part of the judgment

The last sentence of Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that prior authorisation from the Court is not necessary when a third party initiates attachment proceedings seeking to attach a claim against a Member State body that owes a corresponding debt to the debtor of the third party where that debtor is a beneficiary of funds granted for the purpose of implementing projects co-financed by the European Social Fund.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate — Germany) — Hornbach-Baumarkt AG v Finanzamt Landau

(Case C-382/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Legislation of a Member State - Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies - Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence - Correction of the taxable income of the resident company - No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship - Restriction on the freedom of establishment - Justification))

(2018/C 259/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 54 TFEU), must be interpreted as, in principle, not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the income of a company resident in a Member State which granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has a relationship of interdependence advantages under terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances, must be calculated as it would have been if the terms which would have been agreed with unrelated third parties had been applicable, and be corrected, despite the fact that such a correction is not made in respect of taxable income when the same advantages are granted by a resident company to another resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings affords the resident taxpayer the opportunity to prove that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the non-resident company.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW and Others v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-426/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of animals at the time of killing - Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites - Muslim Feast of Sacrifice - Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 - Article 2(k) - Article 4(4) - Obligation for ritual slaughtering without stunning to be carried out in approved slaughterhouses which satisfy the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 10 - Freedom of religion - Article 13 TFEU - Respect for national customs with regard to religious rites))

(2018/C 259/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique IVZW, lslamitische Federatie van België VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervening parties: Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) VZW

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question has not disclosed any issues capable of affecting the validity of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 2(k) thereof, having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-483/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7(1) - Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency - National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged - Principle of equivalence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection))

(2018/C 259/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zsolt Sziber

Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Intervener: Mónika Szeder

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which imposes specific procedural requirements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, on actions brought by consumers who have concluded loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, containing a term stipulating a differential between the exchange rate applicable to the provision of the loan and that applicable to the repayment of the loan and/or a clause providing for an option of unilateral amendment allowing the lender to increase the interest rate, commission and costs, provided that a finding of unfairness in respect of those terms in such a contract makes it possible to restore the legal and factual situation in which the consumer would have found himself had it not been for those unfair terms.

2.	Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as also applying to situations without a cross-border element.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

(Case C-517/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Material scope - Article 3 - Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 - Bridging pension - Classification - Statutory pre-retirement schemes - Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66))

(2018/C 259/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stefan Czerwiński

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, made by the competent national authority in the declaration submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 9(1) of that regulation, is not definitive. The classification of a social security benefit may be made by the national court concerned, autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute the social security benefit at issue, and by referring, if necessary, a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

2.	A benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-526/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2011/92/EC - Assessment of the effects on the environment of drilling to locate or search for shale gas - Deep drillings - Selection criteria - Determination of thresholds))

(2018/C 259/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung, D. Milanowska and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Krawczyk, M. Orion Jędrysek, H. Schwarz and K. Majcher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by excluding projects to locate or search for shale gas deposits by means of drilling to a depth of 5 000 metres — with the exception of drilling to a depth of more than 1 000 metres in areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and nature protection areas in the form of national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks and ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas and the contiguous protection zones — from the procedure for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of, and Annexes II and III to, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

2.	Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Jan-Erik Strobel and Others v Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

(Case C-542/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/92/EC - Scope - Concept of insurance mediation - Directive 2004/39/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘investment advice’ - Advice given in insurance mediation concerning the placement of capital in the context of capital life assurance - Classification of the activity of an insurance agent in the absence of his intention to conclude a genuine insurance contract))

(2018/C 259/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag, Jan-Erik Strobel, Mona Strobel, Margareta Nilsson, Per Nilsson, Kent Danås, Dödsboet efter Tommy Jönsson, Stefan Pramryd, Stefan Ingemansson, Lars Persson, Magnus Persson, Anne-Charlotte Wickström, Peter Nilsson, Ingela Landau, Thomas Landau, Britt-Inger Ruth Romare, Gertrud Andersson, Eva Andersson, Rolf Andersson, Lisa Bergström, Bo Sörensson, Christina Sörensson, Kaj Wirenkook, Lena Bergquist Johansson, Agneta Danås, Hans Eriksson, Christina Forsberg, Christina Danielsson, Per-Olof Danielsson, Ann-Christin Jönsson, Åke Jönsson, Stefan Lindgren, Daniel Röme, Ulla Nilsson, Dödsboet efter Leif Göran Erik Nilsson

Defendants: Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 2, point 3, of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance mediation’ includes work preparatory to the conclusion of an insurance contract, even in the absence of any intention on the part of the insurance intermediary concerned to conclude a genuine insurance contract.

2.

Financial advice relating to the placement of capital in the context of insurance mediation relating to the conclusion of a capital life assurance contract falls within the scope of Directive 2002/92 and not that of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-633/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Control of concentrations of undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 7(1) - Implementation of a concentration prior to notification to the European Commission and declaration of compatibility with the common market - Prohibition - Scope - Concept of ‘concentration’ - Termination of a cooperation agreement with a third party by one of the merging undertakings))

(2018/C 259/11)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Sø- og Handelsretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ernst & Young P/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is implemented only by a transaction which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in control of the target undertaking. The termination of a cooperation agreement, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, which it is for the referring court to determine, may not be regarded as bringing about the implementation of a concentration, irrespective of whether that termination has produced market effects.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille — France) — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-647/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national - Procedures for taking charge and taking back - Article 26(1) - Adoption and notification of the transfer decision before the acceptance of the take back request by the requested Member State))

(2018/C 259/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lille

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adil Hassan

Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as precluding a Member State that has submitted, to another Member State which it considers to be responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the criteria laid down by that regulation, a request to take charge of or take back a person referred to in Article 18(1) of that regulation from adopting a transfer decision and notifying it to that person before the requested Member State has given its explicit or implicit agreement to that request.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dachau v Achim Kollroß (C-660/16) and Finanzamt Göppingen v Erich Wirtl (C-661/16)

(Joined Cases C-660/16 and C-661/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of goods - Article 65 - Article 167 - Payment on account for the purchase of an item not followed by delivery of that item - Supplier’s legal representatives convicted of fraud - Insolvency of the supplier - Deduction of input tax - Conditions - Articles 185 and 186 - Adjustment by the national tax authorities - Conditions))

(2018/C 259/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Finanzamt Dachau (C-660/16), Finanzamt Göppingen (C-661/16)

Respondents: Achim Kollroß (C-660/16), Erich Wirtl (C-661/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 65 and 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, a potential buyer may not be refused the right to deduct the value added tax relating to a payment on account in respect of the goods in question where that payment has been made and received and where, at the time that payment was made, all the relevant information concerning the future supply could be regarded as known to that buyer and the supply of those goods appeared to be certain. However, that buyer may be refused that right if it is established, having regard to objective elements, that, at the time the payment on account was made, he knew or should reasonably have known that that supply was uncertain.

2.

Articles 185 and 186 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, a national law or practice which has the effect of making adjusting the value added tax relating to a payment on account for the supply of an item conditional upon that payment being refunded by the supplier.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Lu Zheng v Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

(Case C-190/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Scope - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Third-country national transporting a significant amount of undeclared cash in his luggage - Obligation to declare the sum being taken out of Spanish territory - Penalties - Proportionality))

(2018/C 259/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lu Zheng

Defendant: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the failure to comply with an obligation to declare significant sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of that State is punishable with a fine which may be up to double the undeclared amount.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-251/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Fine and lump sum))

(2018/C 259/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, M. Russo and F. De Luca, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

1)	By failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

2)

If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Italian Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission a fine of EUR 30 112 500 for every six months of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the full compliance with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water collection and treatment systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), at the end of the period in question, compared with the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment.

3)	The Italian Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 25 million.

4)	The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Törvényszék — Hungary) — Éva Nothartová v Sámson József Boldizsár

(Case C-306/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction - Special jurisdiction - Article 8(3) - Counterclaim arising or not arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based))

(2018/C 259/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Tatabányai Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Éva Nothartová

Defendant: Sámson József Boldizsár

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying, not exclusively, in a situation in which the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim alleging infringement of the applicant’s personality rights, on the ground that photographs were taken and videos recorded without his knowledge, is seised by the defendant bringing a counterclaim for compensation on the ground that the applicant is liable in tort, delict or quasi-delict for, inter alia, restrictions on his intellectual creations, which are the subject of the original application, where, when examining the counterclaim, that court is required to assess the lawfulness of the actions on which the applicant bases its own claims.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) — Bulgaria) — Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis

(Case C-335/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Scope - Concept of ‘rights of access’ - Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2.7 and 2.10 - Rights of access of grandparents))

(2018/C 259/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Neli Valcheva

Respondent: Georgios Babanarakis

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘rights of access’ referred to in Article 1(2)(a) and in Article 2.7 and 2.10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as including rights of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Irit Azoulay and Others v European Parliament

(Case C-390/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union))

(2018/C 259/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Irit Azoulay, Andrew Boreham, Mirja Bouchard, Darren Neville (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and E. Taneva, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot SAS

(Joined Cases C-519/17 P and C-522/17 P to C-525/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for registration of the word marks MASTER PRECISE, MASTER SMOKY, MASTER SHAPE, MASTER DUO and MASTER DRAMA - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Rejection of the applications for registration - Inadequate statement of reasons - To be considered of the Court’s own motion))

(2018/C 259/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, P. Péters, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and D. Hanf, acting as Agents), Guinot (represented by: A. Sion, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (T-181/16, not published, EU:T:2017:447), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (T-179/16, not published, EU:T:2017:445), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE) (T-180/16, not published, EU:T:2017:451), L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO) (T-182/16, not published, EU:T:2017:448), and L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA) (T-183/16, not published, EU:T:2017:449);

2.	Refers Cases T-181/16, T-179/16, T-180/16, T-182/16 and T-183/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3.	Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA

(Case C-537/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 3(1) - Scope - Definition of ‘connecting flight’ - Flight departing from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, including a transfer at an airport situated in the territory of a third State and destined for another airport of that third State))

(2018/C 259/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Claudia Wegener

Defendant: Royal Air Maroc SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the regulation applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Mijo Mestrovic

(Case C-50/18)

(2018/C 259/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mijo Mestrovic

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure to keep available documents relating to pay, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

2.

If Question 1 itself is not answered in the affirmative: Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Zoran Maksimovic

(Case C-64/18)

(2018/C 259/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Zoran Maksimovic

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure by the hiring-out entity to make documents relating to pay available to the third-party employer, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

2.

If Question 1 itself is answered in the negative: Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines in the case of infringements of formal requirements in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.

Appeal brought on 2 February 2018 by Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2017 in Case T-465/16, Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (Cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case C-73/18 P)

(2018/C 259/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and L. Montoya Terán, abogados).

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Visán Industrias Zootécnicas.

By order of 7 June 2018, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered Cotécnica, S.C.C.L to bear its own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

(Case C-140/18)

(2018/C 259/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as failure by the hiring-out entity to make documents relating to pay available to the third-party employer, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

3.

If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is in the negative: Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler

(Case C-146/18)

(2018/C 259/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Humbert Jörg Köfler

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Question referred

Must Articles 47 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for a mandatory contribution to the procedural costs of appeal proceedings of 20 % of the fine imposed?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

(Case C-148/18)

(2018/C 259/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Question referred

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit, especially high minimum penalties or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie (Poland) lodged on 26 March 2018 — H.W.

(Case C-214/18)

(2018/C 259/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.W.

Other party: PSM ‘K’ w G., Komornik Sądowy przy Sądzie Rejonowym w Sopocie Aleksandra Treder

Questions referred

1.

In the light of the system of value added tax deriving from Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) in particular Article 1, Article (2)(1)(a) and (c) and Article 73 in conjunction with subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78, and the principle of VAT neutrality, which is a general principle of EU law, is it permissible — taking into account the content of Article 29a(1) and Article 29a(6)(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (tekst jednolity Dz.U. z 2017 r., poz. 1221 ze zm.) (Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services (consolidated version Dz. U., 2017, No 1221, as amended), ‘the UPTU’) in conjunction with the wording of Article 49(1) and Art. 35 along with Art. 63(4) of the Ustawa z dnia 29 sierpnia 1997 o komornikach sądowych i egzekucji (tekst jedn. Dz.U. z 2017 r., poz. 1277 ze zm.) (Law of 29 August 1997 on court enforcement officers and enforcement (consolidated version Dz. U., 2017, No 1277, as amended), ‘the UKSE’) — to adopt the position that the enforcement fees charged by court enforcement officers already include the tax on goods and services (i.e. VAT)? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

2.

In the light of the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of EU law, is it permissible to adopt the position that a court enforcement officer — as a VAT taxable person in connection with his enforcement activities — does actually possess all the legal instruments in order to perform the tax obligation correctly, assuming that the enforcement fee charged on the basis of the provisions of the UKSE includes the amount of the tax on goods and services (i.e. VAT)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 16 April 2018 — Kamil Dziubak, Justyna Dziubak v Raiffeisen Bank Polska SA

(Case C-260/18)

(2018/C 259/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kamil Dziubak, Justyna Dziubak

Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Polska SA

Questions referred

1.

Do Articles 1(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) make it possible — if the determination of certain contractual provisions which stipulate the manner in which an obligation is to be performed by the parties (its amount) as unfair were to result in the contract being annulled in its entirety, which would be unfavourable to the consumer — to fill gaps in the contract not pursuant to a supplementary provision of law which explicitly replaces the unfair term, but rather pursuant to provisions of national law which provide for supplementing the effects of a legal transaction as expressed in its substance to include the effects arising from the principles of equity (rules of social conduct) or established customs?

2.

Should the possible assessment of the consequences for the consumer of the contract being annulled in its entirety be conducted on the basis of the circumstances existing at the time of its conclusion or on the basis of those existing at the time when the dispute arose between the parties concerning the effectiveness of the clause in question (at the time when the consumer claimed that the clause was abusive), and what relevance attaches to the position taken by the consumer in such a dispute?

3.	Is it possible to uphold provisions which are unfair contractual terms within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC if the adoption of this solution would be objectively beneficial to the consumer at the time when the dispute is being settled?

4.

Could declaring certain contractual provisions stipulating the amount and manner of performance of an obligation by the parties to be unfair result in a situation in which the form of the legal relationship determined on the basis of the contract, except for the effects of unfair terms, may differ from that intended by the parties with respect to the parties’ main obligation; without limitation, does declaring a contractual provision to be unfair mean that other contractual provisions related to the consumer’s main obligation which have not been claimed to be abusive may continue to apply where the form of those provisions (their incorporation in the contract) was inextricably linked to the provision challenged by the consumer?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Appeal brought on 19 April 2018 by the Slovak Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-216/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa v Commission

(Case C-271/18 P)

(2018/C 259/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., Union zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s., European Commission

Form of order sought

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 in Case T-261/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. v European Commission, whereby the General Court allowed the action brought by Dôvera;

—	dismiss the action brought by Dôvera as unfounded; and

—	order Dôvera and Union to pay the costs.

However, if the Court of Justice should conclude that it does not have before it sufficient information to give final judgment in the dispute, the Slovak Republic submits, in the alternative, that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 in Case T-261/15 Dôvera zdravotná poisťovňa a.s. v European Commission, whereby the General Court allowed the action brought by Dôvera;

—	refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

—	reserve the decision on costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Slovak Republic puts forward four grounds of appeal to justify setting aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court:

1.

By the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that in the judgment under appeal the General Court exceeded its power of review in respect of decisions of the European Commission in the field of State aid. The relevant settled case-law of the Court of Justice is clear and, according to the Slovak Republic, it was not observed in the present case. The Slovak Republic submits that in the judgment under appeal the General Court did not respect the broad discretion of the European Commission in relation to complex economic assessments, and did not demonstrate the existence of a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission, but simply substituted its own assessment for that of the European Commission, a precisely contrary assessment, and in doing so it exceeded its power of review.

2.

By the second ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that in the judgment under appeal the General Court in two respects distorted the evidence adduced before it, as it made materially incorrect findings of fact, the incorrectness being clear from the documents in the case-file. The distortion of evidence complained of relates both to the profit factor and to the competition factor in the Slovakian system of compulsory health insurance.

3.

By the third ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic complains that the General Court erred in law in its classification of the Slovakian system of compulsory health insurance, thereby infringing both Article 107(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty. The judgment under appeal is incompatible with the previous case-law of the Court of Justice on social insurance systems. Specifically, the General Court (i) decided in opposite fashion to the Court of Justice’s previous case-law in similar cases, (ii) decided in the same way as the Court of Justice’s previous case-law in different cases and (ii) did not respect the basic approach taken in the previous case-law of the Court of Justice, namely that the classification of a specific social security system is based on its dominant aspects.

4.

Finally, the Slovak Republic submits, by the fourth ground of appeal, that the reasoning of the judgment under appeal shows several defects which justify the setting aside of the judgment under appeal by the Court of Justice. Specifically, (i) the General Court wholly failed to explain certain of its findings and approaches (which, moreover, were decisive), (ii) the reasoning in the judgment under appeal is inconsistent in several respects and the General Court contradicts itself in the judgment under appeal and (iii) the General Court did not, in the reasoning in the judgment under appeal, take account of relevant arguments of the Commission and the Slovak Republic. The General Court thereby infringed the requirement to state reasons resulting from Article 36 in conjunction with Article 53(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 April 2018 — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

(Case C-273/18)

(2018/C 259/30)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Must Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a refusal of the deduction of input value added tax (VAT) where the refusal is based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is knowingly involved in the arrangement of sham transactions, but it is not indicated how the outcome of those specific transactions is detrimental to the Treasury because of failure to pay VAT or an unjustified claim for repayment of VAT, as compared with the situation that would have obtained had the transactions been arranged to reflect the actual circumstances?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa (Lisbon, Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo

(Case C-277/18)

(2018/C 259/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda

Defendant: Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo

Questions referred

1.

Is national legislation, established in Portugal in Decree-law No 69/2005 of 17 March and in Decree-law No 150/90 of 10 May, which, as well as prohibiting the placing on the market of products that could endanger the health and safety of consumers because they can be confused with foods, also prohibits the placing on the market of products that, since they can be confused with other products (toys, in particular) due to their appearance, can, through normal or reasonably foreseeable use, endanger the health and safety of consumers, especially children, compatible with Community law — in particular with Council Directive 2001/95/EC (1) [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, with Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty (as referred to in that directive) and with Council Directive 87/357/EEC (2) of 25 June 198[7]?

2.

Do Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty preclude the application of national legislation which prohibits within the national territory not only the placing on the market of products that can be confused with food products, in accordance with Article 1(2) of the abovementioned Community Directive, but also other products whose appearance can cause consumers to use them for purposes other than those for which they are intended, even when they are not dangerous preparations within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 1999/45/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 11, p. 4.

(2)  Council Directive 87/357/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning products which, appearing to be other than they are, endanger the health or safety of consumers (OJ 1987 L 192, p. 49).

(3)  Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-278/18)

(2018/C 259/32)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manuel Jorge Sequeira Mesquita

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 relating to the exemption of transactions involving the leasing of immovable property be interpreted as meaning that such an exemption is applicable to a contract for the transfer of the use of rural properties comprising vineyards for agricultural purposes to a company whose corporate purpose is the activity of agricultural exploitation, entered into for a period of one year, automatically renewable for further periods of the same length and under which rent is paid at the end of each year?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Magdalena Molina Rodríguez v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

(Case C-279/18)

(2018/C 259/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magdalena Molina Rodríguez

Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

Question referred

Must the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 215(1)(3) of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security) (approved by [Real Decreto Legislativo] 1/94 (Royal Legislative Decree 1/94)), which, as amended by Real Decreto Ley 5/2013 de 15 de marzo (Royal Decree-Law 5/2013 of 15 March), lays down a new condition — that household income may not exceed a certain amount — for entitlement to the non-contributory unemployment benefit for workers aged 55 and over, when this restricts entitlement to that benefit significantly more for female (as compared with male) potential beneficiaries, as is demonstrated by the statistics provided?

---

(1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

Appeal brought on 24 April 2018 by Repower AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 February 2018 in Case T-727/16, Repower v EUIPO

(Case C-281/18 P)

(2018/C 259/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Repower AG (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and V. Kling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, repowermap.org

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the first paragraph of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment of 21 February 2018 in Case T-727/16, in so far as the action was dismissed;

—	annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV));

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.	EUIPO was not authorised to substitute the reasoning for the revocation in the proceedings before the General Court. EUIPO altered the subject matter of the dispute and infringed the right to be heard and the obligation to exercise its discretion.

2.	The general principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure did not apply in the present case. There is no legal gap in the legislation. The provisions of Articles 80 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 constitute a lex specialis.

3.	Under Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, the onus was not on the appellant to prove that a principle of withdrawal of unlawful administrative measures does not exist in the Member States.

4.	Even assuming that such a general principle applies in the field of trade mark law, the conditions for revocation in full were not fulfilled by reason of the protection of legitimate expectations.

5.	There is a failure to state proper reasons in the Board of Appeal’s decision.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2018 — Liliana Beatriz Moya Privitello, Sergio Daniel Martín Durán v Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

(Case C-283/18)

(2018/C 259/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Almería

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Liliana Beatriz Moya Privitello, Sergio Daniel Martín Durán

Respondents: Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

Questions referred

1.

Does the use in contracts for long-term mortgage loans at a variable interest rate of one of the reference indices existing on the market, which has been officially published by the Banco de España (Bank of Spain), preclude the examination of the use of that index from the perspective of transparency, including where an index expressly permitted under the specific legislation has been used, if that legislation allows the parties to choose the index and that Bank used one of those indices without informing the customer of the existence of other applicable indices which are more favourable to consumers?

2.

In so far as that legislation permits the applicable reference index to be chosen from those provided for, can national legislation like that applicable in the main proceedings (namely, inter alia and primarily, the Orden de 5 de mayo de 1994 sobre transparencia de las condiciones financieras de los préstamos hipotecarios (Order of 5 May 1994 on transparency of the financial terms of mortgage loans), Orden EHA/2899/2011, de 28 de octubre, de transparencia y protección del cliente de servicios bancarios (Order EHA/2899/2011 of 28 October on transparency and the protection of banking services customers), Circular 5/2012, de 27 de junio, del Banco de España, a entidades de crédito y proveedores de servicios de pago, sobre transparencia de los servicios bancarios y responsabilidad en la concesión de préstamos (Bank of Spain Notice 5/2012 of 27 June to credit institutions and payment services providers on the transparency of banking services and responsible lending, implementing [Ley] 10/2014, de 26 de junio, de ordenación, supervisión y solvencia de entidades de crédito (Law 10/2014 of 26 June on the organisation, supervision and solvency of credit institutions) or its predecessor, Article 48 of Ley 26/1988, de 29 de julio, sobre Disciplina e Intervención de las Entidades de Crédito (Law 26/1988 of 29 July on supervision and control of credit institutions)) be regarded as ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ for the purpose of contracts for long-term mortgage loans at a variable interest rate, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC? (1)

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 26 April 2018 — Grup Servicii Petroliere SA v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-291/18)

(2018/C 259/36)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grup Servicii Petroliere SA

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 148(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, (1) in conjunction with Article 148(a) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax applies, in some circumstances, to the sale of offshore jackup drilling rigs, that is to say, are offshore jackup drilling rigs covered by the term ‘vessels’ within the meaning of that provision of EU law, given that, according to the title of Chapter 7 of that directive, that provision lays down rules governing ‘exemptions related to international transport’?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 148(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC, in conjunction with Article 148(a) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that an essential condition for applying the exemption from value added tax to an offshore jackup drilling rig, which has navigated into international waters, is that it must in fact be in a state of movement while it is being used (for commercial/industrial activities), floating or moving at sea from place to place, for a longer period than the period during which it is stationary or immobile, as a result of carrying out drilling activities at sea — that is to say, that navigation must in fact predominate via-à-vis drilling activities?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2018 — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega

(Case C-293/18)

(2018/C 259/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia

Defendants: Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega

Questions referred

1.

Must workers engaged pursuant to Article 20 of Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, Tecnología y la Innovación (Law 14/2011 of 1 June 2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation) be regarded as falling within the scope of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which led to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999? (1)

2.	Must the compensation payable on the termination of contracts of employment be regarded as an employment condition as referred to in clause 4 of the framework agreement?

3.

If the previous questions are answered in the affirmative, must the termination of the contracts of employment of workers engaged pursuant to Law 14/2011 of 1 June 2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation and the termination of permanent contracts on objective grounds in accordance with Article 52 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as comparable?

4.	If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, is there any ground under legislation for the differences?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 30 April 2018 — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação S.A. v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA

(Case C-295/18)

(2018/C 259/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação S.A.

Defendants: Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA

Questions referred

1.

Should Article 2 of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) be interpreted such that its scope, as defined in that article, must be deemed to include the execution of a direct-debit payment order issued by a third-party on an account which it does not hold, where the holder of that account has not entered into a payment service contract for a single transaction, or a framework contract for the provision of payment services with that credit institution?

2.	If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, in those circumstances, can that account holder be considered to be a payment service user under Article 58 of the that directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007, L 319, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2018 — Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne

(Case C-321/18)

(2018/C 259/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Terre wallonne ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Questions referred

1.

Is a decree by which a body of a Member State establishes the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), a plan or programme within the meaning of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2), and, more specifically, within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) or Article 3(4) of that directive?

2.	If so, must such a decree be subjected to an environmental assessment in accordance with Directive 2001/42/EC, even though such an assessment is not required under Directive 92/43/EEC, on the basis of which the decree was adopted?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

(2)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2018 in Case T-211/16: Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission

(Case C-345/18 P)

(2018/C 259/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the General Court’s judgment to the extent that it erred by impermissibly substituting its own reasoning when evaluating the second plea in the appellants’ application;

—	set aside the General Court’s judgment on the grounds of manifestly distorting the evidence put before it in respect of the evolution and final situation of market share of the Union industry;

—	uphold the appellants’ second plea in law concerning the General Court’s defective evaluation of the market share situation and exercise its powers to adjudicate itself on the this plea and render final judgment;

—	in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court to properly decide upon the appellants’ plea on this point;

—	confirm that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment and breached Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation (1) when it arrived at the conclusion that the Commission did not commit any manifest error of assessment when adopting its findings relating to material injury;

—	confirm that the General Court did not provide sufficient reasoning and engaged in contradictory reasoning; and

—	order the Commission to pay the appellants’ legal costs and expenses of this procedure as well as the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely upon three grounds of appeal. All three pleas in law presented to the Court of Justice relate to the second plea submitted to the General Court. In summary, the pleas in law raised before the Court of Justice are the following:

1.

The General Court erred in law by substituting its own reasoning for that of the Commission when evaluating the significance of the decrease of the market share of the Union industry, in both relative and absolute terms, and/or manifestly distorted the evidence put before it in respect of the drop in the market share of the Union industry.

2.	The General Court made a manifest error of assessment and breached Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation when it reached the conclusion that the Commission did not commit any manifest error of assessment when adopting its findings relating to material injury.

3.

The General Court did not provide adequate reasoning for its determination on this point since it failed to explain why the Commission’s error in the assessment of the market share of the Union industry did not justify the annulment of the contested regulation as requested by the appellants. In addition, the General Court engaged in contradictory reasoning since it found an error of assessment in the Commission’s evaluation of the market share of the Union industry but ultimately ruled in its favour.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51.

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Spagnolli and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-568/16 and T-599/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Death of a spouse who was an official - Persons entitled under the deceased official - Survivor’s pension - Orphan’s pension - Change of post of the official, surviving spouse - Adaptation of salary - Method of calculation of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions - Article 81a of the Staff Regulations - Notice of modification of pension entitlements - An act affecting a person adversely within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payments - Conditions - Claim for compensation for material and non-material damage))

(2018/C 259/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Alberto Spagnolli (Parma, Italy), Francesco Spagnolli (Parma), Maria Alice Spagnolli (Parma) and Bianca Maria Elena Spagnolli (Parma) (represented by: C. Cortese and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for, in Case T-568/16, annulment of Notice of modification No 3 PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 6 February 2015 containing the statement of the new amounts of the survivor’s and orphan’s pensions granted to the applicants and, in Case T-599/16, firstly, annulment of Decision PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES/3406787 of the PMO of 17 August 2015 for recovery of amounts paid unduly to the applicants by way of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions and, secondly, for compensation for the losses allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action in Case T-568/16;

2.

In Case T-599/16, annuls Decision PMO/04/LM/2015/ARES/3406787 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the Commission of 17 August 2015 ordering recovery of the amounts paid unduly to the applicants by way of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions and dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs in each case.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 C 111, p. 43 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-140/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — OW v EASA

(Case T-597/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Assignment in the interest of the service - Transfer to a new post - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to a fair hearing - Misuse of powers))

(2018/C 259/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OW (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: initially F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, and subsequently by A Haug, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of Decision 2015/155/ED dated 20 July 2015, by which the Executive Director of EASA assigned the applicant to a new post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders OW to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-27/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T-882/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark DOLFINA - No genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 259/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero and A. Ruo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sipral World, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

(Case T-72/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl - Protected geographical indication - Article 15, Article 51(1)(a) and Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18, Article 58(1)(a) and Article 62(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the mark - Use as a trade mark))

(2018/C 259/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

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: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl and S. Schoeller, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Schmid and Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4);

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and also to pay the costs incurred by Ms Gabriele Schmid;

4.	Orders Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

(Case T-136/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark cotecnica MAXIMA - Earlier national figurative mark MAXIM Alimento Superpremium - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 259/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cotécnica, SCCL (established in Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and J.-B. Devaureix, and, subsequently, J. C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mignini & Petrini SpA (established in Petrignano di Assisi, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 853/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mignini & Petrini and Cotécnica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal.

2.	Orders Cotécnica, SCCL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Mignini & Petrini SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Emcur v EUIPO — Emcure Pharmaceuticals (EMCURE)

(Case T-165/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EMCURE - Earlier EU and national word marks EMCUR - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods and services - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 259/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (Bad Ems, Germany) (represented by: K. Bröcker, 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: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Bhosari, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems and Emcure Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2) in so far as it concerns the services in Classes 42 and 44 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders EUIPO and Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2018 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (Lion’s Head)

(Case T-294/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Lion’s Head - Earlier EU word mark LION CAPITAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 259/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lion Capital LLP (London) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 (Case R 1478/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lion Capital and Lion’s Head Global Partners.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2018 — Winkler v Commission

(Case T-369/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Transfer of national pension rights - Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service - Reasonable period - Right to be heard - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Liability - Material damage))

(2018/C 259/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission of 26 September 2016, establishing the number of pensionable years of service to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before he entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct in processing his transfer request.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2018 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)

(Case T-375/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark Blue - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 259/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Klaudia Patricia Fenyves (residing in Hevesvezekény, Hungary) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 (Case R 1974/2016-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Blue as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Klaudia Patricia Fenyves to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2018 –Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)

(Case T-456/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Djili soy original DS - Earlier national word mark DJILI - Relative ground for refusal - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 259/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria) (represented by: C.-R. Romiţan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 516/2011-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Mr Dzhihangir.

Operative part of the order

1.	The plea of inadmissibility is joined to the main proceedings.

2.	The action is dismissed.

3.	Mr Victor Lupu shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

4.	Mr Ibryam Dzhihangir shall bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

Order of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)

(Case T-608/17) (1)

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

(2018/C 259/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N.A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2017 (Case R 2300/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between DF World of Spices GmbH and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

(Case T-280/18)

(2018/C 259/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

—	annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 with regard to the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. (1)

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to be heard and other procedural rights.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.

10.	Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

11.	Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

12.	Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

13.	Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the applicant’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1)

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v ECB

(Case T-281/18)

(2018/C 259/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

—	annul the European Central Bank (ECB) decisions of 23 February 2018 that the applicant and ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA are failing or likely to fail; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s assessment of the ‘failing or likely to fail’ criterion’ in respect of the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg was erroneous and deficient in a number of regards.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the right to be heard and other procedural rights of the applicant.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

10.	Tenth plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights because of a failure to ensure the handling of the applicant’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Bernis and Others v SRB

(Case T-282/18)

(2018/C 259/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia) and Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

—	annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 regarding ABLV Bank, AS and ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on thirteen pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. (1)

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that that the SRB violated the applicants’ right to be heard and other procedural rights.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.

10.	Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

11.	Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

12.	Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

13.	Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicants’ rights pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the affairs of ABLV Bank SA by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Bernis and Others v ECB

(Case T-283/18)

(2018/C 259/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia) and Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

—	annul the ECB’s decisions of 23 February 2018 that ABLV Bank, AS and ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA are failing or likely to fail;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s assessment of the ‘failing or likely to fail’ criterion’ in respect of ABLV Bank and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg was erroneous and deficient in a number of regards.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the right to be heard and other procedural rights of the applicants.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging, alleging that the ECB violated the applicants’ right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

6.	Sixth plea, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

7.	Seventh plea, alleging that the ECB infringed the right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

8.	Eighth plea, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditor principle.

9.	Ninth plea, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

10.	Tenth plea in law, alleging violation of ABLV Bank’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights because of a failure to ensure the handling of ABLV Bank’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18)

(2018/C 259/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

—

consequently, annul (i) the decision of 19 April 2018 confirming the decision of the European Parliament of 24 November 2017 to award the framework contract for general contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels (Call for tenders No 06/D20/2017/M036) to five tenderers other than Strabag Belgium SA and not to the latter undertaking, and (ii) the tender analysis report (addendum) drafted on 26 March 2018 by the evaluation committee appointed by the responsible authorising officer;

—	order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement:

(i)

of Article 110(5) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), providing that the Commission is to be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 210 concerning details on the award criteria, including the most economically advantageous tender;

(ii)

of Article 151 [of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012], as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2462 of 30 October 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 342, p. 7), setting out the rules applicable to abnormally low tenders; and

(iii)

of Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, enshrining the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts.

The applicant takes the view that those rules were infringed in so far as the contested decision:

(i)	indicates that no element provided either in the tenders submitted or in the additional explanations subsequently requested makes it possible to state that the tender of one of the companies awarded the contract was abnormally low in the light of the applicable rules; and

(ii)

regards the abovementioned tender as the lowest compliant tender without adequate reasoning, whereas that tender was evidently not the lowest compliant tender, contained abnormally low prices and ought to have been declared improper and rejected following a more specific and thorough examination conducted by the European Parliament.

Action brought on 8 May 2018 — MLPS v Commission

(Case T-304/18)

(2018/C 259/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Gibaud, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	declare that the European Commission failed to act in so far as it unlawfully refrained from dealing with the complaint of the association Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) of 21 December 2017;

—	annul in full the decision of the European Commission of 7 March 2018 refusing to continue dealing with the complaint of the association Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) of 21 December 2017;

—	make an appropriate order as to costs in accordance with the law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging, inter alia, an error of assessment in so far as the contested decision categorised French social security schemes as a ‘statutory social security schemes’ even though they are by no means schemes intended for the whole population, or even for all of those in employment, but rather schemes grouping workers according to their professional status which should, accordingly, come within the scope of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal uniformity, in so far as France is in a situation that is strictly similar to that of Slovakia, in relation to which the General Court held that ‘in view of the profit pursued by health insurance companies and the existence of intense competition as to quality and the services offered, the activity of providing compulsory health insurance in Slovakia is economic in nature’ (judgment of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission, T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64, paragraph 68). According to the applicant, the situation therefore cannot be held to be otherwise in relation to France.

Action brought on 17 May 2018 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-308/18)

(2018/C 259/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/475 of 21 March 2018 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1426 (OJ 2018 L 79, p. 26);

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/468 of 21 March 2018 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1420 (OJ 2018 L 79, p. 7); in so far as those measures apply to Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem;

—	order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.

2.	Second plea in law: errors committed by the Council as to the accuracy of the factual allegations made against the applicant.

3.	Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation by the Council of Hamas as a terrorist group.

4.	Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference.

5.	Fifth plea in law: failure to take sufficient account of the development of the situation owing to the passage of time.

6.	Sixth plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

7.	Seventh plea in law: infringement of the rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.

Action brought on 15 May 2018 — EPSU and Willem Goudriaan v Commission

(Case T-310/18)

(2018/C 259/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (Brussels, Belgium) and Jan Willem Goudriaan (Brussels) (represented by: R. Arthur, Solicitor, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 5 March 2018 not to propose to the Council that an EU Social Partners’ Agreement of 21 December 2015 on rights of information and consultation for civil servants and employees of central government administrations, entered into under Article 155(1) TFEU, be implemented by a directive by means of a Council decision under Article 155(2) TFEU;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was an act adopted in breach of Article 155(2) TFEU. The Commission lacked power to refuse to propose that the Council implement the Agreement by Council decision, in the absence of any objection either to the representative status of the parties to the Agreement, or to the legality of the Agreement. — The applicants argue that the Commission’s decision not to propose to the Council that the Agreement be implemented by Council decision is in breach of Article 155(2) TFEU, and contrary to the requirement for respect for the autonomy of the social partners, as enshrined in Article 152 TFEU. — The applicants also argue that the Commission was under a duty to make a proposal to the Council, unless it produced a reasoned basis for finding that the social partners who were party to the Agreement were not sufficiently representative, or the agreement was not lawful. — The applicants further maintain that the Commission entered into an assessment of the appropriateness of the Agreement, which does not fall within its powers.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is flawed by reasons which are manifestly mistaken and ill-grounded. — It is argued by the applicants that the grounds invoked by the Commission in its contested decision were not capable of justifying the refusal to make a proposal to the Council that it adopt the Agreement. — The applicants also argue that the only reasons which could have been capable of justifying a refusal would have been a justified objection to the representativeness of the social partners, or to the lawfulness of a Council decision implementing the Agreement as a directive. — Furthermore the applicants maintain that the Commission failed in any event to undertake any impact assessment, and so could not have justified on grounds of proportionality or subsidiarity any conclusion to refuse to propose that the Agreement be implemented as a directive by a Council decision, even if it had been permissible in principle to do so.

Action brought on 22 May 2018 — WD v EFSA

(Case T-320/18)

(2018/C 259/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

—	annul the decision of 14 July 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the applicant was not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

—	annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

—	annul the decision of 9 August 2017 (and notified on 10 August 2017), taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the applicant’s employment contract;

—	annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against that decision of 9 August 2017;

—	award damages for the harm suffered;

—	order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law as regards the decision not to renew her contract.

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012 concerning employment contract management adopted by EFSA.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the Work instruction relating to the contract of employment renewal process adopted by EFSA.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and misuse of power.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the Work instructions and the duty of care.

The applicant relies on a single plea in law as regards the decision not to promote her, alleging infringement of the decision of 22 April 2008 concerning the career of temporary staff and assignment to a post carrying a higher grade than that at which they were engaged, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a golden bottle)

(Case T-324/18)

(2018/C 259/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a golden bottle) – European Union trade mark No 11 531 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1036/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(e)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Szécsi and Somossy v Commission

(Case T-331/18)

(2018/C 259/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: István Szécsi (Szeged, Hungary) and Nóra Somossy (Szeged) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicants HUF 38 330 542,83in compensation;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicants interest on the principal claim from 20 April 2016 at the rate of 11,95 % per annum;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following plea.

The applicants claim that the Commission wrongfully breached its duty of supervision under Article 17 TEU, in so far as it failed to take any appropriate measures to ensure that Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and the relevant Hungarian implementing legislation were applied by the Hungarian courts.

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

(Case T-332/18)

(2018/C 259/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MARRY ME’ — Application for registration No 15 958 226

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 806/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)

(Case T-333/18)

(2018/C 259/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘marry me’ — Application for registration No 15 952 468

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 807/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Mubarak and Others/Council

(Case T-335/18)

(2018/C 259/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt), Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo), Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh (Cairo), Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal (Cairo) (represented by B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt insofar as they apply to the applicants;

—

declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt are inapplicable, insofar as they apply to the applicants; and

—	order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Council has made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicants in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Saleh Thabet v Coucil

(Case T-338/18)

(2018/C 259/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt insofar as they apply to the applicant;

—

declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt are inapplicable, insofar as they apply to the applicant; and order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 that the Council has made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights

Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)

(Case T-349/18)

(2018/C 259/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Hauzenberger (Sinzing, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word elements ‘TurboPerformance’ — Application for registration No 16 053 431

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2018 in Case R 2206/2017-4

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 (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Euronet Consulting v Commission

(Case T-350/18)

(2018/C 259/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Euronet Consulting EEIG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Peeters and R. van Cleemput, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

annul the defendant’s decision of unknown date, communicated to the applicant by letter of 26 March 2018, rejecting its bid for lot 2 of tender EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi — Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018), and awarding the contract to ten other tenderers;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that one legal group was represented twice in a single lot.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that one legal person acted twice as a leader of a consortium and a third time as a member of a consortium.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that one legal group was represented in more than two lots.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that one legal group acted as leader in more than two lots.

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)

(Case T-353/18)

(2018/C 259/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Promeco NV (Kortrijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerts NV (Geel, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 218 193-0010

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2018 in Case R 459/2016-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	dismiss the appeal brought by Aerts NV against the decision of the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division of 8 January 2016, case ICD 9842;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal;

—	order Aerts NV, in case it intervenes in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

—	Infringement of Article 25(1) in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.