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

(2016/C 296/01)

Last publication

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

Past publications

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016

OJ C 232, 27.6.2016

These texts are available on:

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

Method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting

(2016/C 296/02)

On 13 July 2016, the General Court decided that, with effect from 20 September 2016, where a Judge is prevented from acting in the circumstances referred to in the second sentence of Article 17(2) and in the second sentence of Article 24(2) respectively of the Rules of Procedure, the President is to designate the Vice-President to replace the Judge prevented from acting.

If the Vice-President is prevented from acting, the President of the General Court is to designate the Judge replacing the Judge prevented from acting following the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, with the exception of the Presidents of Chambers. However, in order to ensure an even spread of the workload, the President of the General Court may derogate from that order.

Composition of the Grand Chamber

(2016/C 296/03)

On 13 July 2016, the General Court decided that, for the period from 20 September 2016 to 31 August 2019, in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the fifteen Judges of which the Grand Chamber is composed are to be the President of the General Court, the Vice-President, the nine Presidents of Chambers, the two Judges sitting in the formation of three Judges initially seised of the case and the two Judges who would additionally have had to sit in the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber of five Judges.

Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers

(2016/C 296/04)

At its plenum on 11 May 2016, the General Court laid down, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the following criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers:

In the light of the decision of the General Court, taken at its plenum on 15 June 2016, on the conduct of the activity of the General Court from 1 to 19 September 2016 (OJ C 270, 2016, p. 2), providing that the decision of the General Court of 23 September 2013 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers (OJ C 313, 2013, p. 4) will continue to apply between 1 and 19 September 2016, the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers set out above shall be laid down for the period from 20 September 2016 to 31 August 2019.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA v European Commission

(Case C-608/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))

(2016/C 296/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA) SA (represented by: O. Armengol i Gasull and J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA v European Commission

(Case C-616/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))

(2016/C 296/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades SA, Repsol Petróleo SA, Repsol SA v European Commission

(Case C-617/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 81 EC - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2002) - Final paragraph of point 23(b) - Partial immunity from fines - Evidence of facts previously unknown to the Commission))

(2016/C 296/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades SA, Repsol Petróleo SA, Repsol SA (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan, A. Givaja Sanz and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai törvényszék — Hungary) — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi törvényszék

(Case C-287/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Driver’s liability for infringements of the obligation to use a tachograph))

(2016/C 296/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Gyulai törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurospeed Ltd

Defendant: Szegedi törvényszék

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, instead of or in addition to the transport undertaking employing the driver, holds the driver liable for infringements of that regulation which he has himself committed.

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Wolfgang und Dr. Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-332/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Third subparagraph of Article 17(5) - Field of application - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions (mixed-use goods and services) - Determination of the assignation of goods and services purchased for the construction, use, conservation and maintenance of a building that serves to carry out, in part, transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and, in part, transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible - Amendment of the national legislation laying down the method of calculating the deductible proportion - Article 20 - Adjustment of deductions - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))

(2016/C 296/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang und Dr. Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)

(Case C-470/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Private copying - Fair compensation - Financing from the General State Budget - Whether permissible - Conditions))

(2016/C 296/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP)

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)

Intervening parties: Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Entidad de Gestión, Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE),

Operative part of the judgment

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 a scheme for fair compensation for private copying which, like the one at issue in the main proceedings, is financed from the General State Budget in such a way that it is not possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies.

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf — Germany)) — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-479/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Gift tax - Gift of immovable property situated within national territory - National law providing for a higher tax-free allowance for residents than for non-residents - Existence of an optional regime allowing any person resident in an EU Member State to benefit from the higher tax-free allowance))

(2016/C 296/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law that provide, in respect of gifts between non-residents, in the absence of a specific request by the beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a lower tax-free allowance. Those articles also preclude, in any event, rules of national law which provide, at the request of such a beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a higher tax-free allowance which applies to gifts in respect of which at least one party is a resident, the exercise of that option by the non-resident beneficiary involving the aggregation, for the purpose of the calculation of tax due on the gift in question, of all the gifts received by that beneficiary from the same person over the course of the 10 years preceding and the 10 years following that gift.

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Jørn Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH

(Case C-481/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Infringement - Reasonable compensation - Compensation for damage - Costs of proceedings and out-of-court expenses))

(2016/C 296/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jørn Hansson

Defendant: Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania)) — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-586/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership - Fiscal neutrality as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market))

(2016/C 296/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vasile Budișan

Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as:

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — proceedings against István Balogh

(Case C-25/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Right to interpretation and translation - Directive 2010/64/EU - Scope - Definition of criminal proceedings - Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court - Costs in connection with the translation of that decision - Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA - Decision 2009/316/JHA))

(2016/C 296/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

István Balogh

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence.

Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315 must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of national legislation establishing such a special procedure.

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai

(Case C-47/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Police custody - National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry - Situation of ‘transit’ - Multilateral readmission arrangement))

(2016/C 296/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sélina Affum

Respondents: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-63/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 12 - Issue of residence documents or visas - Article 27 - Remedies - Extent of judicial scrutiny))

(2016/C 296/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(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, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an asylum seeker is entitled to plead, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in Chapter III of the regulation, in particular the criterion relating to the grant of a visa set out in Article 12 of the regulation.

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Court of Public Administration and Labour, Hungary)) — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

(Case C-69/15) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Transfers - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 2(35)(g)(iii) - Illegal shipment - Incorrect or inconsistent information entered in the document listed in Annex VII to that regulation - Article 50(1) - Penalties applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of that regulation - Proportionality))

(2016/C 296/17)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Court of Public Administration and Labour, Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L.

Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — George Karim v Migrationsverket

(Case C-155/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 18 - Taking back an asylum seeker whose application is being examined - Article 19 - Cessation of responsibility - Absence from the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months - New procedure for determining the Member State responsible - Article 27 - Remedy - Extent of judicial review))

(2016/C 296/18)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: George Karim

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV v Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

(Case C-158/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Atmospheric pollution - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2003/87/EC - Concept of ‘installation’ - Inclusion of the fuel storage site - Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 - Concept of ‘fuel exported from the installation’))

(2016/C 296/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland EPZ NV

Defendant: Bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)) — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-288/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Subheading 6211 3310 00 0 - Aprons - Anti-radiation protective coats))

(2016/C 296/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that an anti-radiation protective apron-coat, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified in subheading 6211 33 10 00 0 of the CN due to its objective characteristics and properties, including, in particular, its external appearance, without it being necessary to refer to the components conferring on the product in question its essential character.

(1)  OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)) — María del Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

(Joined Cases C-333/15 and C-334/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Agricultural Policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Articles 43 and 44 - Payment entitlements based on areas - Hectares eligible for area aid - Permanent pasture - National legislation making the eligibility of permanent pasture areas which exceed the forage areas initially taken into account for the purposes of determining the payment entitlements subject to conditions that they be used for the purposes of rearing livestock on the farm))

(2016/C 296/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María del Pilar Planes Bresco

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2006 of 19 December 2006 must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer which exceed the area of permanent pasture initially taken into account for determining the amount of her payment entitlements per hectare being taken into account as hectares eligible for area aid for an agricultural year, unless the farmer demonstrates that those areas are actually being used for the purposes of rearing livestock on her farm in that agricultural year.

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

(Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16) (1)

((Preliminary ruling - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures designed to avoid the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Article 6(2)(a) - Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the infected plants - Validity - Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/29 - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle - Obligation to state reasons - Right to compensation))

(2016/C 296/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16)

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of Article 6(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), in the light of Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended by Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002, read in the light of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality and in the light of the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-247/14: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-182/16 P)

(2016/C 296/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Union law by the General Court in so far as the General Court in its judgment of 4 February 2016 infringed Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark and Art. 296 (2) TFEU.

In summary, the General Court erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on the level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark ‘MINI WINI’ and of the similarity of signs and goods with the EUTM application ‘Stick MiniMINI …’, also regarding the independent distinctive role of the element ‘MiniMINI’ within the application. In addition, the General Court did not consider that also inherently weak elements of a trademark contribute to a likelihood of confusion, as well as the specific circumstances of the distribution of products influencing the level of attention of the relevant public and its tendency to abbreviate a mark by a weak, but visually dominant element.

Further, the General Court erred in law, because even if a verbal element should be considered to have a purely descriptive character, such character does not preclude that element from being acknowledged as dominant for the purposes of assessing the similarity of the signs. Also, the decision of the General Court was based on a distortion of the facts regarding the assessment of the dominant elements regarding their size and position within the sign of the contested EUTM application. In addition, the General Court erred in law when it stated that visual similarity is to be assessed dependently from the degree of the distinctiveness of visual elements of the contested EUTM application. Finally, the judgment under appeal was not properly motivated insofar as the General Court failed to deliver reasons concerning the level of attention of the relevant public concerning the specific goods at issue.

(1)  OJ L 78, p. 1

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-254/16)

(2016/C 296/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Grain Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Questions referred

(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 Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Slovak Republic v Achmea BV

(Case C-284/16)

(2016/C 296/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slovak Republic

Defendant: Achmea BV

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2016 — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-286/16)

(2016/C 296/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Exmitiani SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred

(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 Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J.Z.

(Case C-294/16)

(2016/C 296/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia

Party/parties to the main proceedings

J.Z.

Question referred

Must Article 26(1) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) (2002/584/JHA), in conjunction with Article 6(1) and (3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘detention’ also covers measures applied by the executing State, in connection with a curfew, consisting in the electronic monitoring of the place of residence of the person to whom the arrest warrant applies?

(1)  OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2016 — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

(Case C-315/16)

(2016/C 296/28)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: József Lingurár

Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

Questions referred

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1)

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille (Regional Court, Lille) (France) lodged on 6 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

(Case C-320/16)

(2016/C 296/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

Party to the main proceedings

Uber France SAS

Question referred

Does Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports, inserted by Law No 2014-1104 of 1 October 2014 on taxis and private hire vehicles, constitute a new technical regulation that is not implicit and that relates to one or more information society services, within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 (1), such that, pursuant to Article 8 of that directive, it had to be notified in advance to the European Commission, or does it fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 on services, Article 2(d) of which excludes transport?

In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, does a failure to satisfy the notification requirement laid down in Article 8 of the directive mean that Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports is unenforceable against individuals?

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-329/16)

(2016/C 296/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France

Defendants: Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Question referred

Must [Council] Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 [concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1)] be interpreted as meaning that software, the purpose of which is to offer to prescribers practising in towns, a health establishment or a medico-social establishment support for determining a drug prescription, in order to improve the safety of prescription, facilitate the work of the prescriber, encourage conformity of the prescription with national regulatory requirements and reduce the cost of treatment at the same quality, constitutes a medical device within the meaning of that directive, where that software has at least one function that permits the use of data specific to a patient to help his doctor issue his prescription, in particular by detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, even though it does not itself act in or on the human body?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 15 June 2016 — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

(Case C-335/16)

(2016/C 296/31)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

Question referred

How is the fee for the collection and transport of household waste calculated in accordance with EU law? How do Union citizens pay the invoices for the collection and transport of municipal waste, that is, do they pay for the collection and transport of household waste according to the volume of the empty bins or containers, or according to the volume of refuse collected, and is any other item included within the fee?

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)

(Case T-299/16)

(2016/C 296/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Scheffler (Leininingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doc Generici Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘docfauna’ — Application for registration No 12 660 056

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 885/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-303/16)

(2016/C 296/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, 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 two pleas in law.

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — bet365 Group v EUIPO — Hansen (BET365)

(Case T-304/16)

(2016/C 296/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Limited (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Hansen (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BET365’

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 3243/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

(Case T-306/16)

(2016/C 296/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Door handle’ — Community design No 2 208 066-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17/03/2016 in Case R 2040/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 19 June 2016 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Café)

(Case T-309/16)

(2016/C 296/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cafés Pont, SL (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Giordano Vini SpA (Diano d’Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Art’s Café’ — European Union trade mark No 5 622 345

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 01/04/2016 in Case R 1110/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)

(Case T-320/16)

(2016/C 296/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Make up for ever (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ — EU trade mark No 3 416 443

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 985/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Ansell Healthcare Europe v Commission

(Case T-321/16)

(2016/C 296/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ansell Healthcare Europe NV (Anderlecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, 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 four pleas in law.

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB

(Case T-323/16)

(2016/C 296/39)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Cooperativo Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramirez-Escudero, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant challenges the decision regarding the ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund corresponding to the financial year 2016, adopted by the Single Resolution Board and notified through the Spanish Executive Resolution Authority (Autoridad de Resolución Ejecutiva española, ‘FROB’) on 26 April 2016 in accordance with Article 6 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

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

It is claimed, in this regard, that the reasons justifying the inapplicability of Article 5(1) of Delegated Regulation 2015/63 clearly show that it is necessary to adjust the applicant’s risk profile to the operative singularity of the cooperative network it leads, as the abovementioned provisions require. Consequently, and to that extent, the contested decision, the content of which corresponds to a strict and literal application of a rule that takes no account of the applicant’s risk profile, must be regarded as contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59 and, in particular, Regulation No 806/2014, Article 70 of which, relating to ex ante contributions, refers to the provisions of Directive 2014/59 and to its implementing legislation.

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)

(Case T-330/16)

(2016/C 296/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ — Application for registration No 12 440 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 1979/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)

(Case T-331/16)

(2016/C 296/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello media group’ — Application for registration No 12 441 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 2012/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

(Case T-332/16)

(2016/C 296/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘360o’ — Application for registration No 14 042 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 in Case R 2288/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

(Case T-333/16)

(2016/C 296/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘360o’ — Application for registration No 14 042 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 in Case R 2287/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Esko-Graphics v Commission

(Case T-335/16)

(2016/C 296/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Esko-Graphics BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

(Case T-336/16)

(2016/C 296/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO’ — Application for registration No 11 992 435

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1005/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 22 June 2016 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACCINO)

(Case T-337/16)

(2016/C 296/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘VERSACCINO’ — Application for registration No 11 957 685

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 in Case R 1172/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Trane v Commission

(Case T-343/16)

(2016/C 296/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trane (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, 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 four pleas in law.

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission

(Case T-347/16)

(2016/C 296/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14) and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the follow-up to the decision contested in Case T-289/16, Inox Mare v Commission.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful as a result of the serious irregularities in the related investigation procedure conducted by OLAF and concluded by the Final Report contested in Case T-289/16, as cited above.

In concrete terms, the contested measure is vitiated by:

Therefore, in its heads of claim the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision for infringement of the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application and for infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof.

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

(Case T-348/16)

(2016/C 296/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that the sum disputed by ERCEA constitutes eligible costs.

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the costs disputed by ERCEA and, in particular, the staff costs, travel costs and indirect costs are eligible costs. That argument is supported by the evidence which the applicant submitted to ERCEA during the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and, above all, by the comprehensive analysis of the evidence submitted.

Action brought on 1 July 2016 — Kinepolis Group v Commission

(Case T-350/16)

(2016/C 296/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kinepolis Group (Brussel, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, 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 four pleas in law.

Action brought on 1 July 2016 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)

(Case T-355/16)

(2016/C 296/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MULTI FRUITS’ — Application for registration No 13 646 542

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1043/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 5 July 2016 — Punch Powertrain v Commission

(Case T-357/16)

(2016/C 296/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Punch Powertrain (Sint-Truiden, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Axel Springer v EUIPO — Stiftung Warentest (TestBild)

(Case T-359/16)

(2016/C 296/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Axel Springer SE (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiftung Warentest (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TestBild’ — Application for registration No 4 555 579

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2016 in Case R 555/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kaufmann v Commission

(Case F-69/15)

((Civil service - Social security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Home nurse services - Prior authorisation - Conditions - Obligation to use service-providers with legal authorisation to provide home nurse or ‘nursing’ services - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Limits - Action manifestly lacking any legal basis - Direction to the administration - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 296/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Kaufmann (Böhl-Iggelheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Turk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to grant a former official, of whom the applicant is the legal successor, prior authorisation for entitlement to the services of a home nurse, and an application for the applicant to be granted the sums to cover payment of the home nurse services provided by the company concerned, with effect as of 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 22 May 2016 — ZZ v eu-LISA and Commission

(Case F-26/16)

(2016/C 296/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Greinoman, lawyer)

Defendants:

European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale Information Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

and

European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision denying the applicant prior authorisation for medical treatment for her husband under the EU Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 25 May 2016 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-27/16)

(2016/C 296/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision transferring the applicant to a new position in the interests of the service.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 2 June 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-28/16)

(2016/C 296/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to adopt, within a reasonable period, the measures for compliance with the judgment in Case F-96/13 and annulment of the decision of 22 December 2015, which, by reassigning the applicant, with retroactive effect, from the delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in East Jerusalem to DG Mobility and Transport, Directorate of Shared Resources MOVE/ENER in Brussels, constitutes a decision confirming refusal to comply with the judgment referred to.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 June 2016 — ZZ and Others v EIB

(Case F-30/16)

(2016/C 296/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: L.-Y. Levi)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions contained in the pay slips for the month of April 2016, fixing the annual adjustment of salaries limited to 0,6 % for the year 2016 and the annulment of subsequent pay slips, and, as far as necessary, the briefing note which the defendant sent to the applicants on 8 March 2016, and an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 22 June 2016 — ZZ v CEDEFOP

(Case F-31/16)

(2016/C 296/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted under the 2015 annual promotion procedure at the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) and an application for damages in respect of the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Action brought on 23 June 2016 — ZZ v ECDC

(Case F-32/16)

(2016/C 296/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 21 September 2015 closing the applicant’s appraisal report for the reporting period 2011.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-33/16)

(2016/C 296/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should: