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

(2018/C 328/01)

Last publication

OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

Past publications

OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association

(Case C-123/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access - Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 7(1) - Article 23(2)(a) - Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 - Gravity - Mitigating circumstances - Investments made by the infringing undertaking - Review of legality - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Substitution of grounds))

(2018/C 328/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Orange Polska SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, avocat, P. Paśnik and M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokaci, A. Howard, Barrister, and D. Beard QC,)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Malferrari and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, (represented by P. Litwiński, adwokat), European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by G.I. Moir and J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA

(Case C-128/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid - Condition relating to selectivity - Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, E. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, (Agent), Lico Leasing SA, Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión SA (represented by M. Merola, avvocato, and M. Sánchez, abogado)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Bankia SA, Asociación Española de Banca, Unicaja Banco SA, Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Gallego SA, Catalunya Banc SA, Caixabank SA, Banco Santander SA, Santander Investment SA, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Industria de Diseño Textil SA, Naviera Nebulosa de Omega AIE, Banco Mare Nostrum SA, Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA, Ibercaja Banco SA, Banco Grupo Cajatres SAU, Naviera Bósforo AIE, Joyería Tous SA, Corporación Alimentaria Guissona SA, Naviera Muriola AIE, Poal Investments XXI SL, Poal Investments XXII SL, Naviera Cabo Vilaboa C 1658 AIE, Naviera Cabo Domaio, C 1659 AIE, Caamaño Sistemas Metálicos SL, Blumaq SA, Grupo Ibérica de Congelados SA, RNB SL, Inversiones Antaviana SL, Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria SAU, Banco de Albacete SA, Bodegas Muga SL, (represented by J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados), Aluminios Cortizo SAU, (represented by A. Beiras Cal, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))

(2018/C 328/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Case C-528/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - Mutagenesis - Directive 2001/18/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Annexes I A and I B - Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ - Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe - New techniques/methods of mutagenesis - Risks for human health and the environment - Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties - Article 4 - Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue - Human health and environmental protection requirement - Exemption))

(2018/C 328/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-553/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Corporate taxation - Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers - Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company - Non-compliance - Double taxation conventions - Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax - Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished - Irrecoverable interest))

(2018/C 328/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Intervener: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the payment of income by a resident company to a company established in another Member State is, in principle, subject to withholding tax, except where otherwise provided in the double taxation convention entered into between those two Member States, if that legislation requires the resident company, which neither deducts nor pays that sum to the tax authorities of the first Member State, to pay irrecoverable default interest for the period from the expiry of the time limit for payment of the income tax up to the date on which the non-resident company proves that the requirements for the application of the double taxation convention have been fulfilled, even though, in accordance with that convention, the non-resident company is not liable to pay any tax in the first Member State or the amount thereof is lower than that normally payable under the tax law of that Member State.

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

(Case C-585/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 12 - Exclusion from refugee status - Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Existence of a ‘first country of asylum’, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Right to an effective remedy - Full and ex nunc examination - Scope of the powers of the court of first instance - Examination by the courts of international protection needs - Examination of grounds of inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serin Alheto

Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV

(Case C-632/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retail of vacuum cleaners - Energy class label - Directive 2010/30/EU - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Vacuum cleaners - Display of other symbols - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 7 - Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured - Misleading omission))

(2018/C 328/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

Defendant: BSH Home Appliances NV

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-679/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Social assistance - Sickness benefits - Services provided to people with disabilities - Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State))

(2018/C 328/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Intervener: Espoon kaupungin sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunnan yksilöasioiden jaosto

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited

(Case C-5/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Concept - Scope - Dental payment plan by direct debit))

(2018/C 328/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: DPAS Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA (C-95/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar - Appeal directed against the grounds - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use))

(2018/C 328/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-84/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh, J. Blum and C. MacLeod, Solicitors) (C-85/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-95/17 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent) (C-84/17 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société des produits Nestlé SA, (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-85/17 P), Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC and J. Lane Heald, Barrister, instructed by P. Walsh and J. Blum, Solicitors), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat, and S. Malynicz QC) (C-95/17 P)

Interveners in support of the appelant in Case C-84/17 P: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 4.

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017, p. 9.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

(Case C-96/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))

(2018/C 328/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair v Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

(Case C-103/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2003/96/EC - Articles 3 and 18 - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Excise duties - Existence of another indirect tax - Conditions - National legislation providing for a contribution to the public electricity service - Definition of ‘specific purposes’ - Compliance with a minimum level of taxation))

(2018/C 328/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair

Defendants: Premier ministre, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Aviabaltika’ UAB v ‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

(Case C-107/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Enforcement of financial collateral arrangements - Commencement of insolvency proceedings against the collateral taker - Occurrence of the enforcement event - Inclusion of the financial collateral in the assets remaining after the insolvency - Obligation to satisfy the claims primarily from the financial collateral))

(2018/C 328/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Aviabaltika’ UAB

Respondent:‘Ūkio bankas’ AB, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.

(Case C-121/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))

(2018/C 328/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

(Case C-129/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))

(2018/C 328/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

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

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

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.

(Case C-139/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

(Case C-140/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))

(2018/C 328/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-164/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(3) and (4) - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site - Wind farm project - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Article 4 - Special Protection Area (SPA) - Annex I - Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) - Suitable habitat fluctuating over time - Temporary or permanent reduction of the amount of appropriate land - Measures included in the project to ensure that, during the lifetime of the project, the amount of land that is in fact suitable for hosting the natural habitat of the species will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced))

(2018/C 328/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is intended to carry out a project on a site designated for the protection and conservation of certain species, of which the area suitable for providing for the needs of a protected species fluctuates over time, and the temporary or permanent effect of that project will be that some parts of the site will no longer be able to provide a suitable habitat for the species in question, the fact that the project includes measures to ensure that, after an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project has been carried out and throughout the lifetime of the project, the part of the site that is in fact likely to provide a suitable habitat will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced may not be taken into account for the purpose of the assessment that must be carried out in accordance with Article 6(3) of the directive to ensure that the project in question will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned; that fact falls to be considered, if need be, under Article 6(4) of the directive.

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-205/17) (1)

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

(2018/C 328/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

(Case C-239/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 6(1) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 23(1) - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 66(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 70(8)(a) - Cross-compliance - Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction - Year in which the non-compliance occurred))

(2018/C 328/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S

Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — Issue of a European arrest warrant against AY

(Case C-268/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and Article 4(3) - Grounds for the refusal to execute - Closure of a criminal investigation - Principle ne bis in idem - Requested person who had the status of a witness in previous proceedings concerning the same acts - Issue of several European arrest warrants against the same person))

(2018/C 328/22)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski Sud u Zagrebu

Party to the main proceedings

AY

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

(Case C-338/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 328/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-404/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Concept of safe country of origin - No national rules concerning that concept - Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin))

(2018/C 328/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31(8)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin.

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA

(Case C-445/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 - Hearses))

(2018/C 328/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature 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 hearses such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings must be classified under heading 8703 of that combined nomenclature.

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA

(Case C-574/17) (1)

((Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Remission of import duties - Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 - Special situation - Supervision and monitoring obligations - Corruption alleged of the customs authorities - Inauthentic movement certificate - Mutual trust))

(2018/C 328/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Combaro SA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-588/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))

(2018/C 328/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM

(Case C-216/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal))

(2018/C 328/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

LM

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is to be surrendered, has material, such as that set out in a reasoned proposal of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, indicating that there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies so far as concerns the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, that authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether, having regard to his personal situation, as well as to the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that form the basis of the European arrest warrant, and in the light of the information provided by the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run such a risk if he is surrendered to that State.

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML

(Case C-220/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for non-execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Detention conditions in the issuing Member State - Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities - Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State - Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State))

(2018/C 328/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

ML

Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that when the executing judicial authority has information showing there to be systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the prisons of the issuing Member State, the accuracy of which must be verified by the referring court in the light of all the available updated data:

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

(Case C-440/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 1(2) - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 328/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania

(Case C-241/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Defendant: Regione Campania

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Provincial Tax Court, Naples, Italy), by decision of 5 March 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

(Case C-340/18)

(2018/C 328/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

EK, AH and CX

By order of the Court of 3 July 2018, the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-360/18)

(2018/C 328/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Question referred

Is the reimbursement of production levies in the sugar sector — for which, under Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years, (1) different calculations to those used previously are to be made — to be carried out, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in accordance with national law and in particular in application of the limitation period set out thereunder?

(1)  OJ 2013 L 343, p. 2.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2018 — UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V. v Deutsche Post AG

(Case C-374/18)

(2018/C 328/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG, DPD Dynamic Parcel Distribution GmbH & Co. KG, Bundesverband Paket & Expresslogistik e.V.

Defendant: Deutsche Post AG

Questions referred

(1)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

(Case C-388/18)

(2018/C 328/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: B

Question referred

In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) must the provision contained in point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the turnover relevant under that provision, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in accordance with Article 315 of Directive 2006/112/EC, account is to be taken of the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18)

(2018/C 328/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant (appellant): AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Question referred

Is it consistent with European Union law and in particular with the principle of VAT neutrality for a Member State to adopt a measure which makes the assessment and payment of part of a VAT deduction claimed conditional on the completion of a procedure applying to all taxable transactions in a given tax period?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

(Case C-447/18)

(2018/C 328/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UB

Respondent: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

Question referred

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is it possible to interpret Article 1(w), Article 4 and Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, considered in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social advantages, as enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as precluding the application of a provision of national legislation pursuant to which the Slovak social security body is to take into consideration an applicant’s citizenship as a fundamental condition for the purposes of determining the right of national sports representatives to a benefit in addition to the old-age pension, even if another statutory requirement, namely the fact of having represented the legal predecessors of the State, including the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, is also part of that provision of national legislation?

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

Action brought on 23 July 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-481/18)

(2018/C 328/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU, to adopt, by 17 June 2014, the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law. Since the Italian Republic failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Commission has decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

(1)  OJ 2012 L 327, p. 24.

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-487/18)

(2018/C 328/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.

(1)  OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission

(Case T-58/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Mitigating factors - Substantially limited involvement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

(Case T-419/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Error of assessment - Presumption of innocence - Legal certainty - Principle of personal responsibility - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Viscas v Commission

(Case T-422/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, L. Parpala, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Silec Cable and General Cable v Commission

(Case T-438/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Concept of an undertaking - Economic succession - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Silec Cable SAS (Montereau-Fault-Yonne, France) and General Cable Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and I. De Beni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by D. Bailey, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case T-439/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreement, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Single and continuous infringement - Sufficient proof - Contributing to the single objective of the infringement - Knowledge of key elements of the infringement - Calculation of the fine - Basic amount - Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, A. Biolan and N. Khan, and subsequently by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission

(Case T-441/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission

(Case T-444/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission

(Case T-445/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 328/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission

(Case T-446/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Insurmountable barriers to entry - Inapplicability of Article 101 - Duration of involvement - Equal treatment - Calculation of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd (Anyang-Si, South Korea) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

(Case T-447/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Duration of Involvement - Public Distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH (Cologne, Germany) and NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (Brøndby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kofmann and B. Creve, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU primarily for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission

(Case T-448/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hitachi Metals Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by P. Crowther and C. Drew, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case T-449/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nexans France SAS (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: G. Forwood, lawyer, M. Powell, A. Rogers and A. Oh, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and A. Biolan, and subsequently by C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission

(Case T-450/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan) and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission

(Case T-451/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Pirelli & C. v Commission

(Case T-455/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented initially by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and P. Ferrari, and subsequently by M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and A. Bardanzellu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, and subsequently by H. van Vliet, L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission

(Case T-475/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Illegal nature of the inspection decision - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Principle of personal responsibility - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Sufficient proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo, L. Armati and C. Toniolo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, and subsequently by C. Giolito, P. Rossi and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicants: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Rizza, P. Ferrari, F. Moretti and A. Fava, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission

(Case T-606/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Non-promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Comparative merits - Seniority in the grade - Accumulated merits - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2018/C 328/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Felismino Pereira (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid initially, then G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant during the 2015 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-36/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament

(Case T-608/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2014 appraisal period - Promotion - 2015 appraisal period - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of power - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))

(2018/C 328/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PA (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the applicant’s staff report for 2014, as finalised by the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 20 October 2015, second, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 9 December 2015 awarding him one merit point for 2014, third, of the Parliament’s decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 30 November 2015, not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 11 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 364 of 3.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case No F-38/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB

(Case T-745/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BPCE (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB

(Case T-757/16) (1)

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-758/16) (1)

((Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 328/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council

(Case T-9/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease - Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RI (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear)

(Case T-41/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas - Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter decisions))

(2018/C 328/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, S. Cobet-Nüse and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

(Case T-514/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Documents relating to an infringement procedure - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 328/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decisions GESTDEM 2015/1291 of 12 June 2015 and of 17 July 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to the detailed opinions delivered, respectively, by the Commission and the Republic of Malta in the course of notification procedure 2014/537/PL.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-904/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Implementation of the agreement - [confidential] - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 328/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka and L. Camarena Januzec, Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers) and Committee of the Regions (represented by S. Bachotet and M. Antonini, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 11 May 2016 of the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions, in agreement with the EESC [confidential], in implementation of the amicable settlement in Case F-33/15.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC

(Case T-256/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Performance of the agreement - Error in law - Error in assessment - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 328/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of EESC’s decision of 23 June 2016‘not to perform one paragraph of the amicable settlement reached by the parties before the Civil Service Tribunal’ in Case F-33/15 and the payment of EUR 250 000 in respect of material and non-material damage.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission

(Case T-392/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Opening of an external investigation by OLAF - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 328/66)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and Z. Malůšková, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision to open an external investigation, led by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), [confidential], (2) relating to the applicant as person concerned and regarding [confidential].

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

(2)  Confidential data omitted.

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)

(Case T-769/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Declaration of revocation of the opposing trade mark - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 328/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 (Case R 1596/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between André Tanner and roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for contrast agents containing gadolinium for human use - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 328/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for gadolinimum-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’.

Operative part of the order

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PV v Commission

(Case T-224/18 R)

((Interim measures - Civil Service - Psychological harassment - Decisions taken by the Commission following dismissal - Disciplinary proceedings - Reassignment - Setting the salary at ‘zero’ - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Partial inadmissibility - No prima facie case - No urgency))

(2018/C 328/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, the suspension of the operation of, first, disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087, second, disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025, third, the decision to reinstate the applicant, fourth, the decision to set the applicant’s salary at zero and, on the other hand, the adoption of an interim measure assigning the applicant to the staff association ‘Generation 2004’ or to another Directorate General of the Commission.

Operative part of the order

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission

(Case T-250/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2018/C 328/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, W. Mölls and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, I. Cohen and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1865 final of 21 March 2018, Gestdem 2017/4598, relating to partial access to documents.

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

(Case T-433/18)

(2018/C 328/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)

(Case T-439/18)

(2018/C 328/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sintokogio Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: V. Dalichau, S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ProAssist — Application for registration No 1 327 746

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2018 in Case R 2341/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law

Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-460/18)

(2018/C 328/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

(Case T-464/18)

(2018/C 328/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rubio Snacks, SL (Bullas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tia Rosa — Application for registration No 14 442 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2739/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

(Case T-468/18)

(2018/C 328/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercondor Barcelona SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘CONDOR SERVICE, NSC’ — Application for registration No 15 292 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2440/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in the alternative,

Plea in law