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

(2020/C 19/01)

Last publication

OJ C 10, 13.1.2020

Past publications

OJ C 432, 23.12.2019

OJ C 423, 16.12.2019

OJ C 413, 9.12.2019

OJ C 406, 2.12.2019

OJ C 399, 25.11.2019

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019

These texts are available on:

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

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada — Spain) — Bankia SA v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez, Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

(Case C-92/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Declaration that the term is unfair in part - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Question manifestly inadmissible)

(2020/C 19/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendants: Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez, Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

Operative part of the order

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, on the one hand, as precluding an accelerated repayment term found to be unfair in a mortgage loan contract from being maintained in part through the removal by the national court of the elements which render it unfair. On the other hand, those articles do not preclude the national court from remedying the invalidity of such an unfair term — the wording of which is based on a legislative provision which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree — by replacing that term with the new wording of that legislative provision introduced after the conclusion of the contract, where the contract at issue is not capable of continuing in existence following the removal of that unfair term and where the cancellation of the contract in its entirety exposes the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

(Case C-167/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of a national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question manifestly inadmissible)

(2020/C 19/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Defendant: Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

Operative part of the order

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed by a national court. However, they do not preclude the national court from remedying the invalidity of such an unfair term, the wording of which is based on a legislative provision which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, by replacing that term with the new wording of that legislative provision as amended after the conclusion of the mortgage loan contract, where the contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

(Case C-486/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2020/C 19/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendants: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, as not precluding that a national court of first instance may be bound by a decision delivered by an appeal court requiring the initiation of an enforcement procedure taking into account the seriousness of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his obligations under the mortgage loan agreement, even if that agreement contains a term declared unfair in an earlier judgment which has become final, but which does not have the force of res judicata under national law.

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale — Luxembourg) — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

(Case C-801/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Social security convention concluded between the Member State of employment and a non-member country - Family allowances - Application to a frontier worker who is neither a national nor a resident of one of the Contracting States to the convention)

(2020/C 19/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EU

Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Operative part of the order

Article 45 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as precluding the refusal by the competent authorities of one Member State to pay to a national of a second Member State, who works in the first Member State without living there, family allowances for his child living in a non-member country with her mother when, under identical conditions for the grant of those benefits, those competent authorities recognise the entitlement of their own nationals and residents to family benefits pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between the first Member State and that non-member country, unless those authorities can put forward an objective justification for refusing to do so.

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — RM, SN v Agrotiki Trapeza Ellados

(Case C-262/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Creation of mortgages guaranteeing bank loans granted to farmers - National legislation imposing a cap on the sums in respect of which the mortgages are created - Inadequate statement of reasons which prompted the referring court to inquire about the interpretation of EU law - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 19/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RM, SN

Defendant: Agrotiki Trapeza Ellados

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens, Greece), made by decision of 8 February 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Mennica Wrocławska sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-491/18)

(2020/C 19/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mennica Wrocławska sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu

By order of 13 December 2018, the Court (Tenth Chamber) ruled that Articles 168(a), 178(a) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing to allow a taxable person the right to deduct the input value added tax due or paid for the sole reason that the invoices drawn up contain an error as to the identification of the goods which were the subject of the transactions in question, even though the taxable person had provided to the tax authorities, before those authorities took a decision in his regard, the documents and explanations necessary for determining what the actual subject matter of those transactions was and for establishing that those transactions had indeed taken place.

Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Belén Bernaldo de Quirós against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2019 in Case T-273/18 Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

(Case C-583/19 P)

(2020/C 19/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the facts, a manifest error of assessment and an imprecise reasoning in law.

In the context of the second plea in law submitted before the General Court, the appellant relied on the infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence within the framework of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The General Court ruled on that plea in paragraphs 81 to 94 of the judgment under appeal.

The appellant argues that the General Court’s findings are substantially incorrect. She submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in that, first, the internal rules cannot justify non-compliance with a statutory provision and, secondly, the general implementing provisions in question do not provide the delegation of powers of the appointing authority, Lastly, the interpretation of the provisions of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 4(4) of the general implementing provisions resulted in an imprecise reasoning in law.

Appeal brought on 14 August 2019 by CC against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2019 in Case T-248/17 RENV, CC v Parliament

(Case C-612/19 P)

(2020/C 19/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant seeks to have set aside in part the judgment of 13 June 2019 in Case CC v Parliament, T-248/17 RENV (with the exception of point 3 of the operative part), in which the General Court ordered the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 6 000 and all of the costs, with the remainder of the action being dismissed.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds of appeal alleging:

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 30 August 2019 — LN v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

(Case C-655/19)

(2020/C 19/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LN

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP plc

(Case C-709/19)

(2020/C 19/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vereniging van Effectenbezitters

Respondent: BP plc

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 September 2019 – FS v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-719/19)

(2020/C 19/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

(1)  p. 77.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 September 2019 — GR v Stadt Duisburg

(Case C-720/19)

(2020/C 19/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GR

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Questions referred

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2019 — A v B, C

(Case C-738/19)

(2020/C 19/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendants: B, C

Question referred

How should Directive 93/13 (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained therein, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (‘penalty clause’) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with shortcomings of various kinds which, by their very nature, do not have to occur together, and indeed do not do so in the present case? Is it also relevant in that regard that, with regard to the shortcoming on the basis of which payment of the fine is sought, compensation in the form of the remittance of unfairly made profits is also sought?

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 10 October 2019 — B. K. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-742/19)

(2020/C 19/15)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B. K.

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2019 — UD v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Case C-746/19)

(2020/C 19/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UD

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 October 2019 — Ramada Storax SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-756/19)

(2020/C 19/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ramada Storax S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Can Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 …, the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality and the fundamental economic freedoms be interpreted as permitting the Portuguese legislature, pursuant to Article 78(7)(b) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), approved by Decree-Law No 394-B of 26 December 1984, to restrict adjustments of value added tax (VAT) for debts deemed irrecoverable in insolvency proceedings to the circumstances referred to in that article (that is, where the insolvency has been declared a simplified insolvency, once the ruling on the admission and ranking of claims referred to in the Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas (Corporate Insolvency and Recovery Code), approved by Decree-Law No 53 of 18 March 2004, has become final, or following approval of the plan, where such plan exists, agreed under Article 156 of that code), with the result that rulings by courts of other Member States declaring debts claimed in insolvency proceedings irrecoverable are not recognised for that purpose?

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 16 October 2019 — OH v ID

(Case C-758/19)

(2020/C 19/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OH

Defendant: ID

Questions referred

(1)  Article 11 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, now annexed to the Treaty as Protocol No 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 16 October 2019 – JCM Europe (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-760/19)

(2020/C 19/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: JCM Europe (UK) Ltd

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2016, L 269, p. 6.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 18 October 2019 — QE, RD v SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

(Case C-766/19)

(2020/C 19/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: QE, RD

Defendant: SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA

Other party: Ana — Aeroportos de Portugal SA

Questions referred

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2019 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SE

(Case C-768/19)

(2020/C 19/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: SE

Other party: The Representative of the Federal Interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 21 October 2019 — NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites A.E. — LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi A.E., NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites A.E.,LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi A.E.v Αrchi Εxetasis Prodikastikon prosfygon (ΑΕPP), ATTIKO METRO A.E.

(Case C-771/19)

(2020/C 19/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites A.E.— LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi A.E., NAMA Symvouloi Michanikoi kai Meletites A.E., LDK Symvouloi Michanikoi A.E.

Defendants: Αrchi Εxetasis Prodikastikon Prosfygon (ΑΕPP), ATTIKO METRO A.E.

Questions referred

(1)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 22 October 2019 — A.B. and B.B. v Personal Exchange International Limited

(Case C-774/19)

(2020/C 19/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A.B., B.B.

Defendant: Personal Exchange International Limited

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that an online poker playing contract, concluded remotely over the internet by an individual with a foreign operator of online games and subject to that operator’s general terms and conditions, can also be classified as a contract concluded by a consumer for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, where that individual has, for several years, lived on the income thus obtained or the winnings from playing poker, even though he has no formal registration for that type of activity and in any event does not offer that activity to third parties on the market as a paid service?

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — VB, WA v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

(Case C-776/19)

(2020/C 19/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VB, WA

Defendant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — XZ, YY v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

(Case C-777/19)

(2020/C 19/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: XZ, YY

Defendants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — ZX v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

(Case C-778/19)

(2020/C 19/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZX

Defendant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — AV v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

(Case C-779/19)

(2020/C 19/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AV

Defendants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — BW, CX v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

(Case C-780/19)

(2020/C 19/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: BW, CX

Defendants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — DY, EX v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

(Case C-781/19)

(2020/C 19/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DY, EX

Defendant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 22 October 2019 — FA v BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

(Case C-782/19)

(2020/C 19/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FA

Defendants: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Procureur de la République

Questions referred

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 October 2019 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v GB

(Case C-783/19)

(2020/C 19/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Defendant: GB

Questions referred

(1)  Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(2)  Article 103 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 29 October 2019 — XX v Tartu Vangla

(Case C-795/19)

(2020/C 19/32)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Question referred

Should Article 2(2), read in combination with Article 4(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which provide that impaired hearing below the prescribed standard constitutes an absolute impediment to work as a prison officer and that the use of corrective aids to assess compliance with the requirements is not permitted?

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Košice I (Slovakia) lodged on 30 October 2019 — NI, OJ, PK v Sociálna poisťovňa

(Case C-799/19)

(2020/C 19/33)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Košice I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NI, OJ, PK

Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

Questions referred

(1)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 November 2019 — Danske Bank A/S v Skatteverket

(Case C-812/19)

(2020/C 19/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial

Defendant: Skatteverket

Question referred

Does a Swedish branch of a bank established in another Member State constitute an independent taxable person where the principal establishment supplies services to the branch and imputes the costs thereof to the branch, if the principal establishment is part of a VAT group in the other Member State, while the Swedish branch is not a member of any Swedish VAT group? (1)

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (France) lodged on 5 November 2019 — MN

(Case C-813/19)

(2020/C 19/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d'Aix-en-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MN

Other parties: RJA, RJO, FD, BG, PG, KL, LK, MJ, NI, OH

Questions referred

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)

Action brought on 8 November 2019 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-821/19)

(2020/C 19/36)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, J. Tomkin and A. Tokár, Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since the sudden increase in the number of asylum applications in 2015, Hungary has amended its asylum system a number of times. In 2018, substantive amendments were made to Hungarian legislation on the right to asylum. On 20 June 2018, the Hungarian Parliament passed the az egyes törvényeknek a jogellenes bevándorlás elleni intézkedésekkel kapcsolatos módosításáról szóló, 2018. Évi VI. törvény (Law VI of 2018, amending certain laws in relation to measures against illegal immigration) and the seventh amendment to the Hungarian Constitution. That set of legislative measures is also known as the ‘Stop Soros’ Law. Those amendments further restricted the range of persons eligible for asylum, given that, in accordance with the amendment to the Law on the right to asylum, applications are to be deemed inadmissible when applicants have arrived in the territory of Hungary via a country in which they have not been exposed to persecution or faced the direct threat of persecution. The Büntető Törvénykönyv (Criminal Code) was also amended in the same vein. It thus criminalised organising activity aimed at making it possible for asylum proceedings to be brought for persons who are not persecuted on grounds of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group, religious belief or political opinion, or who do not have a well-founded fear of direct persecution in their country of origin, country of habitual residence, or other country via which they arrived [in Hungary].

Taking the view that the legislation adopted in 2018 is contrary to EU law, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary. Given that Hungary’s contentions during the earlier administrative procedure have not dispelled the Commission’s doubts, the latter has decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Appeal brought on 20 November 2019 by Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-417/16: Achemos Grupė and Achema AB v Commission

(Case C-847/19 P)

(2020/C 19/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB (represented by: R. Martens, avocat, V. Ostrovskis, advokatas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Klaipėdos Nafta AB

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)  Commission Decision C(2013) 7884 final of 20 November 2013, whereby State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) granted by Lithuania to Klaipėdos Nafta was declared compatible with the internal market (OJ 2016, C 161, p. 1).

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

(3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004, L 134, p. 114).

Action brought on 21 November 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-849/19)

(2020/C 19/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, C. Hermes)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation objectives within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

Also, the European Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not established appropriate conservation measures within the prescribed periods in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory.

For those reasons, the Hellenic Republic has infringed Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

(2)  Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1).

Action brought on 25 November 2019 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-856/19)

(2020/C 19/39)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

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

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco, as of 1 January 2014, the overall excise duty on cigarettes is to represent at least 60 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption, unless the excise duty levied amounts to at least EUR 115 per 1 000 cigarettes. Since Hungary levies an excise duty of less than EUR 115 per 1 000 cigarettes, that Member State is required to establish an excise duty at a rate equivalent to or greater than 60 % of the weighted average price.

The third subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU granted Hungary and seven other Member States a transitional period until 31 December 2017 in order to reach that rate of excise duty. Under Article 10(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/64/EU, those Member States were required to reach the abovementioned excise duty thresholds by the end of that period.

The Commission claims that, at the end of the transitional period, Hungary did not reach the excise duty thresholds set out in Article 10(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/64/EU and that, as of 31 December 2017, that Member State continues to levy an excise duty that is below the thresholds established in that directive.

(1)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, intervener: French Republic

(Case C-569/17) (1)

(2020/C 19/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 14 August 2019 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH v Lotte Co. Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIP)

(C-580/18 P) (1)

(2020/C 19/41)

Language of the case: German.

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Totalmédia — Marketing Directo e Publicidade S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-751/18) (1)

(2020/C 19/42)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Italy) — Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (S.I.A.E.) v Soundreef Ltd

(Case C-781/18) (1)

(2020/C 19/43)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH/Eurowings GmbH

(C-180/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/44)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — HC, ID v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-247/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Nobina Finland Oy

(Case C-327/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/46)

Language of the case: Finnish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 26 August 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-345/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/47)

Language of the case: Germany

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 22 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GE v Société Air France

(Case C-370/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/48)

Language of the case: Germany

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-287/16 RENV) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Export refunds - No recovery resulting from negligence attributable to a body of a Member State - Non-exhaustion of all possible remedies - Proportionality)

(2020/C 19/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium the amount of EUR 9 601 619,00.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission

(Case T-502/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Murder of an official and his wife - Obligation to ensure the safety of staff in the service of the European Union - Liability of the institution for non-material damage suffered by the family members of a deceased official - Mother, brother and sister of the official - Action for damages - Admissibility - Standing to bring proceedings under Article 270 TFEU - Person covered by the Staff Regulations - Reasonable period of time)

(2020/C 19/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Shanghai, China) and the six other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Eggers, G. Gattinara and D. Martin, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, an order that the Commission pay to the heirs and successors of Mr Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, to the heirs and successors of Mr Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, to Ms Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin, to Mr Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and to Ms Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano various sums by way of compensation for non-material damage arising from the murder of Mr Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and his wife on 18 September 2006 in Rabat (Morocco), where Mr Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano was present for professional reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-132/12) and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 –Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex

(Case T-31/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a naval operation carried out by Frontex in the central Mediterranean in 2017 - Vessels deployed - Refusal of access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of public security)

(2020/C 19/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Madrid, Spain) and Arne Semsrott (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans, R. Callsen, lawyers, and J. Pobjoy, Barrister)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and T. Knäbe, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and J. Currall, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Frontex Decision CGO/LAU/18911c/2017 of 10 November 2017 refusing access to documents containing information on the name, flag and type of each vessel deployed by Frontex in the central Mediterranean under Joint Operation Triton between 1 June and 30 August 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)

(Case T-527/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark tec.nicum - Earlier national figurative mark TECNIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2020/C 19/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: A. Haudan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tecnium, SL (Manresa, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2427/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnium and K.A. Schmersal Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission

(Case T-592/18) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Remuneration - Decision refusing to grant expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Diplomatic status - Five-year reference period)

(2020/C 19/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision of 23 November 2017 by which the applicant was refused expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopimed)

(Case T-642/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DermoFaes Atopimed - Earlier EU word mark Dermowas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 (Case R 1365/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO — Faes Farma (DermoFaes)

(Case T-643/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DermoFaes - Earlier EU word mark Dermowas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2018 (Case R 1842/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED)

(Case T-695/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark fLORAMED - Earlier EU word mark MEDIFLOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Werner (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: T Büttner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: U. Pfleghar, M. Best, M. Giannakoulis and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 197/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Mr Werner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2019 — Wyld v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (wyld)

(Case T-711/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark wyld - Earlier international word mark WILD CRISP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Rejection in part of the application for registration)

(2020/C 19/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wyld GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 (Case R 2621/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings betweenKaufland Warenhandel and Wyld.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council

(Case T- 276/13 RENV) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Repeal of the contested act - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 19/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, DC, United States) and Renewable Fuels Association (Washington) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, acting as Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it concerns the applicants and their members

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

Order of the General Court of 21 November 2019 — ZI v Commission

(Case T-618/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Affiliation of the official’s spouse - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 19/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZI (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by R. Meyer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 4 December 2017 of the Commission’s ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Taminco v Commission

(Case T-740/18 R)

(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Active substance thiram - Conditions of approval for placing on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 19/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taminco BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, A. Lewis and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1500 of 9 October 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance thiram, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing thiram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 254, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923)

(Case T-147/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Application for European Union figurative mark GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923 - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 19/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Flovax Sàrl (Doncols, Luxembourg) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dagniaux (Roubaix, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 (Joined Cases R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Compagnie Gervais Danone and, on the other hand, Flovax and Dagniaux.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO

(Case T-181/19) (1)

(Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory act - Time limit for complaints - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 19/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukosiütè, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests to remove the termination clause in Article 5 of her contract, reclassify her contract as a contract of indefinite duration, withdraw, if necessary, the decision of 14 December 2017 and grant a second contract extension beyond 30 September 2018 or, at least, include her in the procedure for a second renewal of temporary agent contracts in accordance with the guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts of 28 January 2016 and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

(Case T-518/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Active substance chlorothalonil - Conditions of approval for placing on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 19/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Naglis and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorothalonil, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 114, p. 15).

Operative part of the order

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission

(Case T-549/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Orphan medicinal product - Application to suspend operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2020/C 19/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate mbH (Wedel, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, L. Haasbeek and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 4858 final of 20 June 2019 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Trecondi-treosulfan’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

The Court orders:

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission

(Case T-568/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Bacteriophage - Listeria - ListexTM P100 - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 19/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV (Wageningen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, W. Farrell and I. Galindo Martín, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the alleged decision by the European Commission of 17 June 2019 by which it allegedly prohibited the placing on the market of ListexTM P100 for use as a processing aid on animal derived Ready-To-Eat-Food.

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 23 October 2019 – Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission

(Case T-719/19)

(2020/C 19/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Northgate plc (Darlington, United Kingdom), and Northgate Europe Ltd (Darlington) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).

Action brought on 25 October 2019 – LSEGH (Luxembourg) and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) v Commission

(Case T-726/19)

(2020/C 19/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (London,) (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Pliego Selie, and A. von Bonin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 29 October 2019 — PL v Commission

(Case T-728/19)

(2020/C 19/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PL (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Action brought on 29 October 2019 – Arris Global v Commission

(Case T-731/19)

(2020/C 19/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arris Global Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1)  Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission

(Case T-79/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/70)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2019 — DK v GSA

(Case T-537/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/71)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.