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

(2016/C 419/01)

Last publication

OJ C 410, 7.11.2016

Past publications

OJ C 402, 31.10.2016

OJ C 392, 24.10.2016

OJ C 383, 17.10.2016

OJ C 371, 10.10.2016

OJ C 364, 3.10.2016

OJ C 350, 26.9.2016

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

(Case C-165/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State - Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens - First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence - Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State - National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record - Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union))

(2016/C 419/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

Respondent: Administración del Estado

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS

(Case C-304/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Third-country national having a young dependent child who is a Union citizen - Right to reside in the Member State of which the child is a national - Criminal convictions of the child’s parent - Decision to expel the parent resulting in the indirect expulsion of the child concerned))

(2016/C 419/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent: CS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others (C-488/14)

(Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good conduct guarantee’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))

(2016/C 419/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Star Storage SA (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA (C-488/14)

Defendants: Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AVZI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA (C-488/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the admissibility of any action against an act of the contracting authority subject to the obligation for the applicant to constitute a good conduct guarantee that it provides to the contracting authority, if that guarantee must be refunded to the applicant whatever the outcome of the action.

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

OJ C 26, 26.01.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Tobias Mc Fadden v Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH

(Case C-484/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Information society - Free movement of services - Commercial wireless local area network (WLAN) - Made available to the general public free of charge - Liability of intermediary service providers - Mere conduit - Directive 2000/31/EC - Article 12 - Limitation of liability - Unknown user of the network - Infringement of rights of rightholders over a protected work - Duty to secure the network - Tortious liability of the trader))

(2016/C 419/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tobias Mc Fadden

Defendant: Sony Music Entertainment Germany GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-516/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 178(a) - Right of deduction - Conditions of exercise - Article 226(6) and (7) - Details required in invoices - Extent and nature of the services rendered - Date on which the supply of services is made))

(2016/C 419/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not a priori comply with the requirements of point 6 of that article and that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ do not a priori comply either with the requirements of point 6 or with those of point 7 of that article, which is, however, for the referring tribunal to ascertain.

Article 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax solely because the taxable person holds an invoice which does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) and (7) of that directive, even though those authorities have available all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of that right are satisfied.

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

(Case C-518/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 167, Article 178(a), Article 179 and Article 226(3) - Deduction of input tax - Invoices not showing a tax number or VAT identification number - Legislation of a Member State excluding the ex tunc correction of an invoice))

(2016/C 419/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Senatex GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

Operative part of the judgment

Article 167, Article 178(a), Article 179 and Article 226(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the correction of an invoice in relation to a detail which must be mentioned, namely the value added tax identification number, does not have retroactive effect, so that the right to deduct value added tax exercised on the basis of the corrected invoice relates not to the year in which the invoice was originally drawn up but to the year in which it was corrected.

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-525/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation - Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation - Refusal to recognise the hallmark - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Admissibility))

(2016/C 419/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

(Case C-574/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Power Purchase Agreements - Compensation paid for voluntary termination - Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market - Assessment of the lawfulness of aid by a national court - Annual adjustment of stranded costs - Point at which an energy generator’s membership of a group of undertakings is taken into account))

(2016/C 419/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

(Case C-592/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 18(1)(b) - Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ - Prohibition of marketing within the European Union - Scope))

(2016/C 419/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients

Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

Intervening parties: Cruelty Free International, formerly British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that it may prohibit the placing on the European Union market of cosmetic products containing some ingredients that have been tested on animals outside the European Union, in order to market cosmetic products in third countries, if the resulting data is used to prove the safety of those products for the purposes of placing them on the EU market.

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa

(Case C-596/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Compensation for termination of a contract of employment - Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts - Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers))

(2016/C 419/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras

Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - Duties of the European Commission and the European Central Bank - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Obligation to ensure that the Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with EU law))

(2016/C 419/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) (represented by: A. Paschalides, dikigoros, A. Paschalidou, Barrister, and A. Riza QC, instructed by C. Paschalides, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-14/15 and C-116/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Automated data exchange - Registration of vehicles - Dactyloscopic data - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures - Consultation of the European Parliament - Initiative of a Member State or of the European Commission - Voting rules))

(2016/C 419/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès, K. Michoel and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid — Spain) — María Elena Pérez López v Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

(Case C-16/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 to 5 - Successive fixed-term employment contracts within the public health service - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment relationships - Penalties - Reclassification of the employment relationship - Right to compensation))

(2016/C 419/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Elena Pérez López

Defendant: Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Koninklijke KPN NV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

(Case C-28/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 4 and 19 - National Regulatory Authority - Harmonisation measures - Recommendation 2009/396/EC - Legal scope - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 8 and 13 - Operator designated as having significant market power on a market - Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities - Price control and cost accounting obligations - Fixed and mobile call termination rates - Scope of the review that national courts can exercise over the decisions of national regulatory authorities))

(2016/C 419/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Koninklijke KPN NV, KPN BV, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, Tele2 Nederland BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV, Ziggo Services BV, formerly UPC Nederland BV, Ziggo Zakelijk Services BV, formerly UPC Business BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-91/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8701 - Tractors - Subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 - Agricultural tractors (excluding pedestrian-controlled tractors) and forestry tractors, wheeled, new - Light four-wheeled all terrain vehicles designed to be used as tractors))

(2016/C 419/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Operative part of the judgment

Paragraph 2 of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid in so far as it classifies the vehicle described in that paragraph under subheading 8107 90 90 of that Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, and not under one of subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 of that Combined Nomenclature, which correspond to the engine power of that vehicle.

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-105/15 P to C-109/15 P) (1)

((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Eurogroup statement concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Actions for annulment))

(2016/C 419/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Konstantinos Mallis (C-105/15 P), Elli Konstantinou Malli (C-105/15 P), Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (C-106/15 P), Petros Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Elenitsa Chatzithoma (C-107/15 P), Lella Chatziioannou (C-108/15 P), Marinos Nikolaou (C-109/15 P) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Koutsoukou, O. Heinz and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA and Others v Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC) and Others

(Case C-110/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive right of reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(b) - Private copying exception - Fair compensation - Conclusion of agreements governed by private law to determine the criteria for exemption from payment of fair compensation - Request for reimbursement of compensation confined to the final user))

(2016/C 419/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, formerly Nokia Italia SpA, Hewlett-Packard Italiana Srl, Telecom Italia SpA, Samsung Electronics Italia SpA, Dell SpA, Fastweb SpA, Sony Mobile Communications Italy SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Defendants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali (MIBAC), Società italiana degli autori ed editori (SIAE), Istituto per la tutela dei diritti degli artisti interpreti esecutori (IMAIE), in liquidation, Associazione nazionale industrie cinematografiche audiovisive e multimediali (ANICA), Associazione produttori televisivi (APT)

Interveners: Assotelecomunicazioni (Asstel), Vodafone Omnitel NV, H3G SpA, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino, Assoutenti, Adiconsum, Cittadinanza Attiva, Altroconsumo

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular, Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that, on the one hand, subjects exemption from payment of the private copying levy for producers and importers of devices and media intended for use clearly unrelated to private copying to the conclusion of agreements between an entity which has a legal monopoly on the representation of the interests of authors of works, and those liable to pay compensation, or their trade associations, and, on the other hand, provides that the reimbursement of such a levy, where it has been unduly paid, may be requested only by the final user of those devices and media.

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München

(Case C-113/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 1(3)(b) - Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ - Article 2 - Consumer information and protection - Article 3(1)(8) - Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff - Article 13(1) - Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff - Article 13(4) - Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 - Directive 2001/110/EC - Article 2(4) - Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey - Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers - Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price - Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey))

(2016/C 419/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that each of the individual portions of honey presented in the form of portion-cups closed by an aluminium seal and packed in cartons supplied to mass caterers constitutes a ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ where the mass caterers sell those portions separately or offer them for sale to the ultimate consumer as part of pre-prepared meals for an all-inclusive price.

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-139/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time limit - Non-compliance with the time limit laid down - Consequences))

(2016/C 419/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-140/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time limit - Non-compliance with the time limit laid down - Consequences))

(2016/C 419/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud (C-184/15), Juan Carlos Castrejana López v Ayuntamiento de Vitoria (C-197/15)

(Joined Cases C-184/15 and C-197/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 5 and 8 - Use of successive fixed-term employment contracts - Measures to prevent abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Penalties - Reclassification of the fixed-term employment relationship as a ‘non-permanent employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Principle of effectiveness))

(2016/C 419/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Florentina Martínez Andrés (C-184/15), Juan Carlos Castrejana López (C-197/15)

Defendants: Servicio Vasco de Salud (C-184/15), Ayuntamiento de Vitoria (C-197/15)

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

(Case C-221/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 15(1) - Free determination, by the manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of manufactured tobacco products - National regulation prohibiting the sale of such products by retailers at prices lower than those indicated on the revenue stamp - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Selling arrangements - Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU))

(2016/C 419/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium

Party in the main proceedings

Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))

(2016/C 419/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper — Belgium) — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

(Case C-261/15) (1)

((Rail transport - Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 - Passengers’ rights and obligations - Absence of a ticket - Failure to regularise within the prescribed period - Criminal offence))

(2016/C 419/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Ieper

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

Defendant: Gregory Demey

Operative part of the judgment

The final sentence of Article 6(2) of Appendix A to the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as modified by the Protocol for the modification of the Convention Concerning International Carriage by Rail of 3 June 1999, in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which lay down that a person making a train journey while not in possession of a ticket for that purpose, who fails to regularise his situation within the periods laid down in those provisions, does not have a contractual relationship with the railway undertaking.

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-304/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - Article 4(3) - Annex VI, Part A - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants - Application - Aberthaw Power Station))

(2016/C 419/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduction - Decision 2004/817/EC - Legislative provision of a Member State - Expenditure on goods and services - Extent of use of goods or services for non-economic purposes greater than 90 % of total use - Exclusion of the right to deduct))

(2016/C 419/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Defendant: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC of 19 November 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a situation in which the goods or services that an undertaking acquires are used, to an extent greater than 90 %, for non-economic activities, which fall outside the scope of value added tax.

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Pensa Pharma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S

(Case C-442/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Word mark PENSA PHARMA - Figurative mark pensa - Applications for a declaration of invalidity of the holders of the word marks pentasa - Declaration of invalidity - Proceedings before EUIPO - Change in the subject matter of the proceedings - New plea before the General Court))

(2016/C 419/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pensa Pharma SA (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and D. Slopek, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

(Case C-478/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Exemption of income derived from part-time employment as a teacher with a legal person governed by public law established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies - Legislation of a Member State excluding from that exemption income derived from such employment with a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland))

(2016/C 419/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, concerning the equal treatment of employees must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which a resident national with unlimited liability to income tax who has exercised the right to freedom of movement in order to work as an employee on a part-time basis in the teaching profession for a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland is denied a tax exemption in respect of the income from that employment whereas such an exemption would be granted if that person had been so employed by a legal person governed by public law established in that Member State, in another Member State of the European Union or in another State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies.

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Ori Martin SA C-490/15 P), Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (C-505/15 P) v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-490/15 P and C-505/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence by the parent company over the subsidiary - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 41 - Right to proceedings being conducted within a reasonable time))

(2016/C 419/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Ori Martin SA (C-490/15 P), Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (C-505/15 P) (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Trafilerie Meridionali SpA v European Commission

(Case C-519/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines - Point 35 - Unlimited jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time))

(2016/C 419/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA (represented by: P. M. Ferrari and G. Lamicela, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal basis - Meaning of associated entity))

(2016/C 419/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC), Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.02.2016.

Appeal brought on 1 March 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 16 December 2015 in Case T-547/15, Anastasia-Soultana Gaki v European Commission

(Case C-130/16 P)

(2016/C 419/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (represented by: A. Heinen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 September 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2016 — FMS Wertmanagement AöR v Heta Asset Resolution AG

(Case C-394/16)

(2016/C 419/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FMS Wertmanagement AöR

Defendant: Heta Asset Resolution AG

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2016 — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

(Case C-395/16)

(2016/C 419/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH

Defendant: CeramTec GmbH

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.

(Case C-414/16)

(2016/C 419/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Egenberger

Defendant: Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V.

Questions referred

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

Appeal brought on 28 July 2016 by mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH, against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-322/14 and T-325/14, mobile.international v EUIPO — Rezon

(Case C-418/16 P)

(2016/C 419/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: mobile.de GmbH, formerly mobile.international GmbH (represented by: T. Lührig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rezon OOD

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) read in conjunction with Rules 22(2) and 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (2) because it interprets the well-defined concept of ‘proof of use’ in Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in Rules 22(2) and 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95 differently, contrary to the generally recognised interpretative principles of legal methodology. The divergent interpretation of the same term in Regulation No 207/2009 and in Regulation No 2868/95 is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and legal clarity. Moreover, the General Court disregards the fact that Rules 40(6) and 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 exclude a late submission of evidence of use in cancellation proceedings and that EUIPO has no discretion in that regard. Article 57(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 is not applicable and EUIPO has not made use of it, with the result that the decision of the Boards of Appeal and of the General Court cannot be based on it.

The judgment under appeal also infringes Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 inasmuch as the General Court erred in law by assuming that Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 was applicable, even though Rules 40(6) and 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 preclude its applicability to invalidity proceedings due to the systematic interpretation of Rule 50(1)(3) of Regulation No 2868/95.

Moreover, the requirements of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 were not satisfied because the intervener did not at any point in the proceedings put forward any legitimate reason for the late submission of the invoices that had been available to it from the outset. The General Court therefore incorrectly applied Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, because the stage of the proceedings reached and the surrounding circumstances already meant that no account could be taken of the evidence that had been submitted late. In addition, the General Court distorted the facts by wrongly setting out the factual background, with the result that the invoices submitted at the appeal stage did not constitute ‘additional’ or ‘clarifying’ evidence in that regard.

The General Court did not examine either the phonetic or the conceptual differences between the signs actually used and, on the whole, did not base itself on the overall impression of the signs, but rather took into account only individual elements, therefore incorrectly applying Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

The General Court took into account manifestly irrelevant evidence, even though that evidence was undated or fell outside the relevant period. By doing so, the General Court incorrectly applied Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95.

The General Court erred in law in assuming that it was not required to examine the objection of abuse of law. The General Court failed entirely to examine the objection of prescription.

Finally, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the General Court disregarded the fact that the Boards of Appeal ought logically to have set aside and remitted the decisions of the Cancellation Division only in respect of the services consisting of ‘advertising related to vehicles’ and, with regard to the remaining services in respect of which use had not been proved, ought to have given a final decision and ought to have expressed the partial rejection of the requests for cancellation on the ground of absence of proof of use by way of a ruling capable of having legal force.

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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Acacia Srl and Rolando D’Amato v Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

(Case C-435/16)

(2016/C 419/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants on a point of law: Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato

Respondent on a point of law: Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (Romania) lodged on 8 August 2016 — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București

(Case C-441/16)

(2016/C 419/39)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SMS group GmbH

Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București

Questions referred

(1)  Eighth Council Directive of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

(Case C-473/16)

(2016/C 419/40)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Questions referred

(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatia) lodged on 30 August 2016 — Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo v Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

(Case C-476/16)

(2016/C 419/41)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo

Defendant: Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

Question referred

Is the practice of an airline of a signatory to the Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European common aviation area (ECAA) which consists in providing commercial air transportation services departing from one of the Member States of the European Union, via its country of origin as a transfer point where passengers and their luggage are transhipped to another aircraft belonging to the same company, and travelling to a Member State of the European Union or a third country on the basis of an autonomous transport ticket which indicates two different flight numbers consistent with the interpretation of EU law in general and with the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of Protocol VI included in Annex V of the ECAA in particular?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 September 2016 — Fidelity Funds v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-480/16)

(2016/C 419/42)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fidelity Funds

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Intervener: NN (L) SICAV

Question referred

Is a tax regime, such as that in the main proceedings, under which non-Danish undertakings for collective investment covered by Council Directive 85/611/EEC (1) (the UCITS Directive) are taxed at source on dividends from Danish companies, contrary to Article 56 TEC (Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital or Article 49 TEC (Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services, where equivalent Danish undertakings for collective investment can obtain an exemption for tax at source, either because they in fact make a minimum distribution to their members in return for retention of tax at source, or technically a minimum distribution is calculated, on which tax at source is retained in relation to the undertakings’ members?

(1)  Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 September 2016 — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-483/16)

(2016/C 419/43)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zsolt Sziber

Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Other party to the proceedings: Mónika Szeder

Questions referred

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

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 14 September 2016 — A.S. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-490/16)

(2016/C 419/44)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.S.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T-549/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Castello - Earlier national and EU figurative marks Castelló - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Geroulakos and D. Botis, subsequently by D. Botis and lastly by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl Stiftung & Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — European Children's Fashion Association and Instituto de Economía Pública v EACEA

(Case T-724/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the action programme ‘Lifelong Learning (2007-2013)’ - ‘Brand & Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector’ project - Action for annulment - Act not subject to appeal - Act forming part of a purely contractual agreement from which it is indissociable - Inadmissibility - Ineligible expenditure - Reimbursement of the sums paid - Audit report))

(2016/C 419/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: European Children’s Fashion Association (Valencia, Spain) and Instituto de Economía Pública (Valencia) (represented by: A. Haegeman, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, acting as Agents)

Re:

Primarily, application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration that the first application is not required to reimburse the sum paid to it by EACEA under the agreement for the execution of the ‘Brand & Merchandising Manager for SMEs in the Children’s Product Sector’ project, or, in the alternative, application for annulment, firstly, of EACEA’s pre-information letter of 1 August 2014 informing the first applicant that it had to reimburse the sum of EUR 82 378,81 following the audit of the that project and, secondly, of debit note No 3241401420, issued by EACEA on 5 August 2014, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

(Case T-70/15) (1)

((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU - Setting of fees by the Split Port Authority for port services in respect of domestic traffic at maximum levels - Rejection of a complaint - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - No EU interest))

(2016/C 419/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, C. Urraca Caviedes and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 9236 final of 28 November 2014, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning infringements of Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed by the Split Port Authority or of Articles 102 and 106 TFEU committed by the Republic of Croatia or the Split Port Authority (Case AT.40199 — Port of Split).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY)

(Case T-129/15 and T-130/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against two decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2015 (Cases, respectively, R 1857/2014-5 and R 1864/2014-5), concerning two applications for registration of the word signs, respectively, WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 155, 2.7.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO (Representation of a body builder)

(Case T-335/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a body-builder - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by H. O’Neill, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 2958/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a body-builder as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Bach Flower Remedies v EUIPO — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark RESCUE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Simandlova and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2551/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Durapharma and Bach Flower Remedies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Alpex Pharma v EUIPO — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)

(Case T-355/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ASTEX - Earlier EU word mark ALPEX - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli and E. Rondinelli, lawyers)

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: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Plesanton, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 593/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpex Pharma and Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-370/15) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))

(2016/C 419/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — ECDC v CJ

(Case T-395/15) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))

(2016/C 419/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Flowil International Lighting v EUIPO — Lorimod Prod Com (Silvania Food)

(Case T-430/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Silvania Food - Earlier EU word marks SYLVANIA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Lorimod Prod Com, Srl (Simleul Silvaniei, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2015 (Case R 616/2014-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Flowil International Lighting (Holding) and SC Lorimod Prod Com.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — Foodcare v EUIPO — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-456/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: A. Matusik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dariusz Michalczewski (Gdańsk, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, M. Czerwińska and M. Marek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (Case R 265/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Michalczewski and Foodcare.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA)

(Case T-574/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KOZMeTIKA AFRODITA - Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/56)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pedro Núñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (case R 2577/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

(Case T-575/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS - Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/57)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pedro Núñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (case R 2578/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (THE ART OF RAW)

(Case T-593/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark THE ART OF RAW - Earlier national and EU figurative marks art and earlier EU figurative mark The Art Company - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyer)

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: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2015 (Case R 1980/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Art Company B & S and G-Star Raw.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille on the front of a car)

(Case T-73/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 419/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2014 (Case R 1796/2014-2) relating to the applicant’s Community trade mark application

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille on the front of a car)

(Case T-87/15) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 419/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2014 (Case R 1797/2014-2) relating to the applicant’s Community trade mark application

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission

(Case T-382/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - State aid - Nuclear energy - Aid in support of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Contract for difference, agreement of the Secretary of State and credit guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 419/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Greenpeace Energy eG (Hamburg, Germany) and the nine other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Nysten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44).

Operative part of the order

The Court orders as follows:

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council

(Case T-408/16)

(2016/C 419/62)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Acquafarm v Commission

(Case T-458/16)

(2016/C 419/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acquafarm, SL (Huelva, Spain) (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant requests that the General Court award it compensation for the damage caused by the lack of coordination of administrative action relating to the aquaculture facility, located in Gibraleón (Huelva), which resulted in serious injury to the legitimate expectations placed in that entity, arising as a result of the grant of aid for the implementation of an aquaculture project, which, in parallel, the European Union makes unviable as a result of a ban on the export of the species for the breeding of which the facilities are being built.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings is a company dedicated to research, innovation and industrial development in the field of aquaculture; it was created in 2004 for the implementation of an aquaculture project for the breeding and marketing of the Cherax Cuadricarinatus shellfish (Australian freshwater lobster). That project was awarded the corresponding aid from the European Union in accordance with the provisions set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (OJ 2007 L 120, p. 1).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, for consideration thereof, on Spanish law on administrative responsibility, as stated in Article 106 of the Constitution and Articles 139 and following of Ley 30/92, de 26 de noviembre, de Régimen Jurídico de las Administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento Administrativo Común (Law 30/92 of 26 November on the legal rules governing public authorities and the common administrative procedure).

In that regard, the applicant states that:

Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission

(Case T-637/16)

(2016/C 419/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Righini and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Commission’s Decision C(2015) 9837 final of 11 January 2016 in State aid case SA.37667 — Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (the ‘decision’)

Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by FV against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15, FV v Council

(Case T-639/16 P)

(2016/C 419/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

Action brought on 11 September 2016 — Gamaa Islamya Egypte v Council

(Case T-643/16)

(2016/C 419/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gamaa Islamya Egypte (Egypt) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four plea(s) in law.

Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council

(Case T-646/16 P)

(2016/C 419/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

Appeal brought on 16 September 2016 by HD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-136/15, HD v Parliament

(Case T-652/16 P)

(2016/C 419/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HD (Aach, Germany) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

Action brought on 20 September 2016 — Vincent Villeneuve v Commission

(Case T-671/16)

(2016/C 419/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vincent Villeneuve (Montpellier, France) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Seigneur v ECB

(Case T-674/16)

(2016/C 419/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

accordingly:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB

(Case T-677/16)

(2016/C 419/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi et M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

accordingly:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council

(Case T-678/16 P)

(2016/C 419/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law.

He is of the opinion that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the classification in law of the Council’s decision validating his early retirement of 11 July 2013. In consequence, he submits that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 November 2014 refusing his early retirement must be regarded as an adverse measure withdrawing the earlier decision accepting his early retirement and not as a mere decision confirming an implied rejection decision.

The appellant submits, finally, that since the decision of 12 November 2014 was contested within the period prescribed for that purpose, the action brought at first instance is admissible and its merits must be examined.

Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Athletic Club v Commission

(Case T-679/16)

(2016/C 419/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs. As regards the applicant, that aid consists in the tax advantage which it had allegedly obtained during the relevant period, because it was taxed as a non-profit association and therefore did not pay the standard corporate tax rate.

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

Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)

(Case T-707/16)

(2016/C 419/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enoitalia, Corte Vigna, Baldo, Belvino, Ca' del Lago, Invino, Vinuva, Cantine Borsari, Ca' Montini, E.I., Enoi, V.E.B., Cbe, Ca.Pi SpA (Enoitalia SpA) (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTONIO RUBINI’ — EU trade mark No 9 526 955

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 in Case R 1085/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law