9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/1

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/2

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/3

1.

Does an infringement of the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 19(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1) affect only the determination of jurisdiction, with the consequent application of Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 or, on the contrary, may it constitute a ground for withholding recognition, in the Member State whose court has been seised first, of a judicial ruling made in the Member State whose court has been seised at a later stage, in the light of procedural public policy, having regard to the fact that Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 refers only to the rules determining jurisdiction contained in Articles 3 to 14 of that regulation and not to the subsequent Article 19 thereof?

2.

Does the interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation No 2201/2003, seen only as a test for the conferral of jurisdiction, conflict with the EU-law concept of lis pendens and with the function and purpose of that provision, which is intended to lay down a set of binding rules, reflecting procedural public policy, thereby guaranteeing the creation of a common area characterised by reciprocal procedural trust and fairness between the Member States, within which the automatic recognition and free movement of judicial decisions may operate?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/3

(a)

For the purposes of classifying that aid (as “existing” and, therefore, not “new” aid), is Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) according to which “(v) aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State. Where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation”, applicable and, if so, under what conditions; or is the principle (formally different in scope from that of the abovementioned substantive law provision) established by the General Court in its judgment of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/9 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 (Alzetta and Others v Commission, paragraph 143), and confirmed, by the ruling, of interest in the present case, of the Court of Justice in Case C-298/00 P (paragraphs 66 to 69) — according to which “… a system of aid established in a market that was initially closed to competition must, when that market is liberalised, be regarded as an existing aid system, since at the time of its establishment it did not come within the scope of Article 92(1) of the Treaty [subsequently Article 87(1)], which, having regard to the requirements set out in that provision regarding effect on trade between Member States and repercussions on competition, applies only to sectors open to competition” — applicable and, if so, under what conditions?

(b)

For the purposes of classifying the aid at issue, is Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation No 659/1999, according to which “existing” aid is “aid which is deemed to be existing aid pursuant to Article 15” — Article 15 establishing a 10-year limitation period for recovering unlawfully granted aid — applicable and, if so, under what conditions —; or are the well established principles of the Court of Justice of the protection of legitimate expectation and legal certainty applicable and, if so, under what conditions (whether or not similar to the principle set out in the substantive law provision referred to above)?’

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/4

1.

Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

2.

Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

3.

Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

4.

Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

5.

Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/5

1.

Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

2.

Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

3.

Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

4.

Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

5.

Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/7

1.

Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

2.

Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

3.

Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

4.

Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

5.

Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/8

1.

Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

2.

Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

3.

Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

4.

Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

5.

Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/9

1.

Is a requirement to preserve cairns, established by a Member State for an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, for the breach of which a reduction of the payment by 3 % is imposed as an administrative penalty laid down by Article 39 of Commission Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, (1) compatible with Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council and the minimum standards laid down in Annex II to that regulation?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is No, must, in accordance with Article 72(1)(a), Article 91(1) and (2), Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) of Regulation No 1307/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment comply with the requirements of good agricultural and environmental condition on the whole of his holding or solely on the agricultural area in respect of which the payment is specifically applied for, in order to exclude the imposition of an administrative penalty?

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/9

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) (1) by approving an appendix to a forest management plan for the Białowieża Forest District without satisfying itself that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the Białowieża Forest Site of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Protection Area (SPA) PLC200004;

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive and under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (‘the Birds Directive’) (2) by not taking the necessary conservation measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of (i) the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and the species listed in Annex II to the Habitats Directive, and (ii) the birds listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and the regularly occurring migratory species not listed in that annex, for which the Białowieża Forest SCI and SPA PLC200004 were designated;

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(a) and (d) of the Habitats Directive by not guaranteeing the strict protection of the saproxylic beetles (the Flat Bark Beetle (Cucujus cinnaberinus), the Goldstreifiger Beetle (Buprestis splendens), the False Darkling Beetle (Phryganophilus ruficollis) and Pytho kolwensis) listed in Annex IV to the Habitats Directive, that is, by failing to prohibit the deliberate killing or disturbance of those beetles or the deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites in the Białowieża Forest District; and

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(b) and (d) of the Birds Directive by not guaranteeing the protection of the species of birds referred to in Article 1 of the Birds Directive, including, in particular, the White-Backed Woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), the Three-Toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), the Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum) and the Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus), that is, by failing to ensure that they will not be killed or disturbed during their breeding and rearing periods and that their nests or eggs in the Białowieża Forest District will not be deliberately destroyed, damaged or removed;

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/11

(a)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must identify the entire extent of the habitats and species for which the site is listed;

(b)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the potential impact on all species (as opposed to only protected species) which contribute to and are part of a protected habitat must be identified and discussed in a Natura Impact Statement;

(c)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must expressly address the impact of the proposed development on protected species and habitats both located on the SAC site as well as species and habitats located outside its boundaries;

(d)

whether Directive 2011/92/EU (2) of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact statement must expressly address whether the proposed development will significantly impact on the species identified in the statement;

(e)

whether an option that the developer considered and discussed in the environmental impact assessment, and/or that was argued for by some of the stakeholders, and/or that was considered by the competent authority, amounts to a ‘main alternative’ within the meaning of art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, even if it was rejected by the developer at an early stage;

(f)

whether Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact assessment should contain sufficient information as to the environmental impact of each alternative as to enable a comparison to be made between the environmental desirability of the different alternatives; and/or that it must be made explicit in the environmental impact statement as to how the environmental effects of the alternatives were taken into account;

(g)

whether the requirement in art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, that the reasons for the developer's choice must be made by ‘taking into account the environmental effects’, applies only to the chosen option or also to the main alternatives studied, so as to require the analysis of those options to address their environmental effects;

(h)

whether it is compatible with the attainment of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended that details of the construction phase (such as the compound location and haul routes) can be left to post-consent decision, and if so whether it is open to a competent authority to permit such matters to be determined by unilateral decision by the developer, within the context of any development consent granted, to be notified to the competent authority rather than approved by it;

(i)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority is obliged to record, with sufficient detail and clarity to dispel any doubt as to the meaning and effect of such opinion, the extent to which scientific opinion presented to it argues in favour of obtaining further information prior to the grant of development consent;

(j)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the competent authority is required to give reasons or detailed reasons for rejecting a conclusion by its inspector that further information or scientific study is required prior to the grant of development consent; and

(k)

whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority, when conducting an appropriate assessment, must provide detailed and express reasons for each element of its decision.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/12

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to close down, as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8 of the directive, a permit to continue to operate, or by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that sites which have obtained a permit to continue to operate comply with the requirements laid down in that directive, with the exception of the requirements set out in point 1 of Annex I to the directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 14(b) and Article 14(c) of the directive, in so far as concerns the following landfill sites: (1) Avigliano (Loc. Serre Le Brecce); (2) Ferrandina (Loc. Venita); (3) Genzano di Lucania (Loc. Matinella); (4) Latronico (Loc. Torre); (5) Lauria (Loc. Carpineto); (6) Maratea (Loc. Montescuro); (7) Moliterno (Loc. Tempa La Guarella); (8) Potenza (Loc. Montegrosso-Pallareta: site scheduled for closure in September 2016); (9) Potenza (Loc. Montegrosso-Pallareta), site said never to have been used; (10) Rapolla (Loc. Albero in Piano); (11) Roccanova (Loc. Serre); (12) Sant’Angelo Le Fratte (Loc. Farisi); (13) Campotosto (Loc. Reperduso); (14) Capistrello (Loc. Trasolero); (15) Francavilla (Valle Anzuca); (16) L’Aquila (Loc. Ponte delle Grotte); (17) Andria (D’Oria G.& C. s.n.c); (18) Canosa (CO.BE.MA); (19) Bisceglie (CO.GE.SER); (20) Andria (F.lli Acquaviva); (21) Trani (BAT-Igea s.r.l.); (22) Torviscosa (Società Caffaro);

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to close down, as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8 of the directive, a permit to continue to operate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 14(b) of that directive, in so far as concerns the following landfill sites: (23) Atella (Loc. Cafaro); (24) Corleto Perticara (Loc. Tempa Masone); (25) Marsico Nuovo (Loc. Galaino); (26) Matera (Loc. La Martella); (27) Pescopagano (Loc. Domacchia); (28) Rionero in Volture (Loc. Ventaruolo); (29) Salandra (Loc. Piano del Governo); (30) San Mauro Forte (Loc. Priati); (31) Senise (Loc. Palomabara); (32) Tito (Loc. Aia dei Monaci); (33) Tito (Loc. Valle del Forno); (34) Capestrano (Loc. Tirassegno); (35) Castellalto (Loc. Colle Coccu);(36) Castelvecchio Calvisio (Loc. Termine); (37) Corfinio (Loc. Cannucce); (38) Corfinio (Loc. Case querceto);(39) Mosciano S. Angelo (Loc. Santa Assunta); (40) S. Omero (Loc. Ficcadenti); (41) Montecorvino Pugliano (Loc. Parapoti); (42) San Bartolomeo in Galdo (Loc. Serra Pastore); (43) Trivigano (ex Cava Zof); (44) Torviscosa (Loc. La Valletta);

—

order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/14

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.

The costs are reserved.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/14

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.

The costs are reserved.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/15

1.

Operation of the decision of the European Commission of 13 July 2016, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, relating to a request for access to documents registered under the reference GestDem2015/5711, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from the Republic of Malta.

2.

The costs are reserved.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/15

—

set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 assessing not successful the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and subsequent decisions to assess the bid of another tenderer successful and to award the contract to it;

—

order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant as well as an interest of 8 % or in the alternative to award a compensation as well as a compensation of 8 %;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds, infringement of the principle of proportionality while assessing the applicant's tender.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a good administration.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/16

—

declare that EU law has been infringed by the SRB in Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopted at the executive session of 7 June 2017 and in which it adopted the resolution scheme regarding the financial institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

—

consequently, annul that measure and, in addition, the consequential implementing measures that the SRB was able to take, all with retroactive effect.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/17

—

annul the contested decision;

—

declare that Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are unlawful and inapplicable;

—

order the defendant, the Single Resolution Board, to pay the costs.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/17

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

—

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

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/18

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

alternatively

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1) and, to remit the case to the Office for Harmonization;

alternatively

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 May 2017 (Appeal No R 1870/2016-1)

—

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

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/19

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures;

—

order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to provide him with the evidence on which they rely before re-listing the applicant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/19

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/993 of 12 June 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 67) , Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/994 of 12 June 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 149, p. 75), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1459 of 10 August 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 38), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1457 of 10 August 2017 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ 2017, L 208, p. 33), insofar as those acts include the applicant in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

—

order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to give the applicant the evidence purportedly in support of their decision to relist the applicant before it was relisted, or in support of the EU implementation of its UN listing, in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to discharge their obligations when deciding to list the applicant following its UN designation.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their powers by attempting to render ineffective and thereby evade the applicant’s right to an effective remedy in relation to its listing pursuant to Article 230 TFEU and/or they have breached the applicant’s right to equal treatment.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection law.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/20

—

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on the non-fiscal aid measures put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others) — SA.43145 (2016/FC) (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1); and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

—

The Commission infringed the applicant’s procedural rights in so far as its decision, which is the subject of the action, was adopted after merely a preliminary examination, even though the Commission was required to open a formal investigation. The applicant bases this argument on the fact that the Commission, having a duty to carry out an assessment of the information and evidence at its disposal, ought to have been concerned about the compatibility of the non-fiscal aid measures unlawfully put in place by Germany in favour of the youth hostel Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH (and others).

—

In so far as the Commission only inadequately or, moreover, in substantial aspects incorrectly examined the information and evidence giving rise to those concerns in the decision which is the subject of the action, the applicant further argues that the Commission failed to meet its obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/21

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

—

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

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/22

9.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/23