18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/1

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

1.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax levied on large retail establishments, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large retail establishments according, in essence, to their sales area does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area is less than 2 500 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies or reduces by 60 % the tax base of establishments selling furniture, sanitary ware and doors and windows and those that are do-it-yourself stores, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

Such a tax does, however, constitute State aid within the meaning of that provision, to the extent that it exempts collective large retail establishments with a surface area equal to or greater than 2 500 m2.

3.

In circumstances such as those described by the referring court, State aid resulting from a tax regime such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot constitute existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which is reproduced in Article 1(b) of 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.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/3

1.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax levied on large retail establishments, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large distribution establishments according, in essence, to their display and sales area does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area is less than 4 000 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies and whose sales area does not exceed 10 000 m2, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/4

1.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax levied on large retail establishments, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large distribution establishments according, in essence, to their sales area, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area does not exceed 500 m2 and those whose sales area exceeds that threshold but whose basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of selling machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies, construction materials, plumbing materials and doors and windows, for sale only to professionals, fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments, and motor vehicles, as well as garden centres and service stations, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/4

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/5

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

2.

Orders Cellnex Telecom SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha SA to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/7

1.

Declares that, by failing to include the entire Important Bird Area covering the Rila Mountains as a Special Protection Area, the Republic of Bulgaria did not classify as SPAs the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on wild birds, so that that Member State failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of that directive.

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/7

—

its obligations arising from Article XVII of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) by requiring foreign higher education institutions situated outside the EEA to conclude an international agreement as a prerequisite for providing education services, pursuant to Article 76(1)(a) of Law CCIV of 2011, as amended;

—

its obligations arising from Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) and, in any event, from Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU as well as from Article XVII of the GATS, by requiring foreign higher education institutions to offer higher education in their country of origin, pursuant to Article 76(1)(b) of Law CCIV of 2011, as amended;

—

its obligations arising from Articles 13, 14(3) and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in relation to the restrictions described above; and that the Court should

—

order Hungary to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/8

—

Declare that Hungary, by introducing discriminatorily, unnecessarily and without justification restrictions on foreign grants to Hungarian civil organisations through the a külföldről támogatott szervezetek átláthatóságáról szóló 2017. évi LXXVI. törvény (Law LXXVI of 2017, on the transparency of organisations that receive financial support from abroad), the provisions of which impose obligations of registration, declaration and transparency on certain categories of civil organisations—those that receive direct or indirect foreign financial support exceeding a specified amount —and also make it possible for penalties to be imposed on organisations that do not fulfil such obligations, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Articles 7, 8 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

Order Hungary to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/9

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16 CJ v ECDC (EU:T:2017:893) in whole;

—

consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the contested appraisal report of 21 September 2015;

—

order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

1.

Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (1) apply when an undertaking ceases to hold the contract for the service it is engaged to provide for a client as a result of termination of the contract for the provision of the service, in a labour-intensive business (cleaning of facilities), and the new holder of the contract for the services takes over the majority of the employees assigned to the performance of that service, when those employment contracts are taken over in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement on employment in the cleaning sector?

2.

Is the interpretation of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), to the effect that a transfer of staff pursuant to the terms of the collective agreement does not constitute a transfer of an undertaking, since it does not satisfy the requirement of voluntary transfer, and that, consequently, Directive 2001/23 does not apply, compatible with that directive (as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union)?

3.

May the rules laid down in Directive 2001/23 be considered to mean that, where, in cases involving undertakings in the services sector, the collective agreement for that sector lays down an obligation to take over the employees, this constitutes a transfer of staff and, therefore, a transfer of undertakings within the meaning of the aforementioned directive?

4.

Is Article 14 of the Convenio Colectivo de Limpieza de Edificios y Locales de la Provincia de Las Palmas 2012/2014 (Collective Agreement applicable to the Cleaning of Buildings and Premises in the Province of Las Palmas 2012/2014) –– which provides, in cases in which employees are taken over by another undertaking pursuant to the collective agreement, that the employees taken over do not retain either the rights and obligations which they held with the transferor undertaking or the working conditions established by collective agreement –– compatible with Article 3 of Directive 2001/23?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

1.

When a farmer has purchased some plants belonging to a plant variety from a nursery (establishment owned by a third party) and planted them before the grant of the variety right has come into effect, in order for the subsequent activity of that farmer of collecting the successive harvests to be covered by the ius prohibendi in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, (1) must the requirements under Article 13(3) be satisfied for Article 13(2) to be interpreted as relating to harvested material? Or must Article 13(2) be interpreted as meaning that the activity of harvesting is an act of production or reproduction of the variety which results in ‘harvested material’, whose prohibition by the holder of the plant variety does not require the conditions in Article 13(3) to be satisfied?

2.

Is an interpretation to the effect that the cumulative protection scheme covers all of the acts listed in Article 13(2) that refer to ‘harvested material’ and also the harvest itself, or that it covers only acts subsequent to the collection of that harvested material, whether the storage or marketing of that material, compatible with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94?

3.

In applying the scheme for extending the cumulative protection to ‘harvested material’, provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, in order for the first condition to be satisfied, is it necessary for the purchase of the plants to have taken place after the holder obtained Community protection for the plant variety, or [Or.10] is it sufficient that at that time the plant variety enjoyed provisional protection, as the purchase took place in the period between publication of the application and the grant of the plant variety right coming into effect?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/12

1.

Is it correct to interpret Clause 4 of the framework agreement as meaning that a situation such as that described in the present case, in which an interim civil servant carries out the same work as a career civil servant (who is not entitled to an allowance because the situation that would warrant it does not exist under the legal regime applicable to him) is not consistent with the situation described in that clause?

2.

Given that the right to equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination constitute a general EU principle enshrined in a directive (in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the light of fundamental social rights [within the meaning of] Articles 151 and 153 TFEU, is it consistent with the framework agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC (1) to interpret [Clause 4], in such a way as to achieve its objectives, as meaning that the right of an interim civil servant to receive an allowance may be established either by comparison with a temporary contract worker, since his status (as a civil servant or as a contract worker) is determined exclusively by the public-sector employer, or by the direct vertical application to which EU primary law is open?

3.

Taking into account the existence, if any, of improper use of temporary appointments to meet permanent staffing needs for no objective reason and in a manner inconsistent with the urgent and pressing need that warrants recourse to them, and for want of any effective penalties or limits in Spanish national law, would it be consistent with the objectives pursued by Directive 1999/70/EC to grant, as a means of preventing abuse and eliminating the consequence of infringing EU law, an allowance comparable to that for unfair dismissal, that is to say, one that serves as an adequate, proportional, effective and dissuasive penalty, in circumstances where an employer does not offer a worker a permanent post?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/13

1.

Is an interpretation according to which, provided that the period of three years has elapsed, since the holder, once Community protection of the plant variety right was granted, became aware of the infringing act and the identity of the infringer, the actions provided for under Articles 94 and 95 of the Regulation would be time-barred, although the infringing acts were continuing until the time the action was brought, contrary to Article 96 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94? (1)

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, is it to be considered that, in accordance with Article 96 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, the limitation period operates only in respect of infringing acts committed outside the three-year period, but not in respect of those taking place within the last three years?

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, in such a situation could the action for an injunction and also for damages succeed only in relation to those latter acts taking place within the last three years?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/14

1.

Must the criterion of ‘a service … which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks’ in Article 2(c) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also includes, or may also include, web-based email services which are supplied over the open internet and do not themselves provide internet access?

2.

In the event that the criterion referred to in Question 1 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not, in principle, include web-based email services which are supplied over the open internet and do not themselves provide internet access, is that criterion nonetheless capable, exceptionally, of being fulfilled where the provider of such an email service simultaneously operates a number of its own internet-connected electronic communications networks which can in any event be used, inter alia, for the purposes of the email service? If so, under which conditions is this possible?

3.

How is the criterion ‘normally provided for remuneration’, laid down in Article 2(c) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC, to be interpreted?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/16

1.

Must Article 20(1) to (3) of [Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection] (1) be interpreted as enumerating exhaustively the cases in which material reception conditions may be reduced or withdrawn, or does it follow from Article 20(4) and (5) thereof that withdrawal of the right to material reception conditions may also occur by means of sanctions for serious breaches of the rules relating to reception centres and serious acts of violence?

2.

Must Article 20(5) and (6) [of Directive 2013/33] be interpreted as meaning that Member States, before taking a decision on the reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions or on the imposition of sanctions, must, in the context of those decisions, lay down the measures necessary for guaranteeing the right to a dignified standard of living during the period of exclusion, or can those provisions be complied with by a system whereby, after the decision to reduce or withdraw the material reception conditions, an examination is carried out as to whether the person who is the subject of the decision enjoys a dignified living standard and, if necessary, remedial measures are taken at that point?

3.

Must Article 20(4) to (6) of Directive 2013/33, read in conjunction with Articles 14, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a measure or sanction of temporary (or definitive) exclusion from the right to material reception conditions is possible, or impossible, in respect of a minor, specifically in respect of an unaccompanied minor?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/16

1.

In the event of termination of a financial leasing agreement, does the provision contained in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of VAT allow the taxable amount to be reduced and the VAT to be refunded where the VAT has been established by way of a definitive tax assessment notice on the basis of a taxable amount consisting of the sum of the monthly leasing instalments due throughout the term of the agreement?

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: in the event of termination of a leasing agreement on account of partial non-payment of the leasing instalments owed, on which of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of the directive can the lessor rely as against a Member State in order to have the taxable amount for VAT purposes reduced to the extent of the instalments that were owed but not paid in respect of the period from the cessation of payments to the time of termination of the agreement, in the case where the termination is not retroactive and this is confirmed by a clause in the agreement itself?

3.

Does the interpretation of Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive permit the conclusion that a situation such as that at issue here involves a derogation from Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive?

4.

Does the interpretation of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive permit the assumption that the term ‘refusal’ used in that provision includes the situation where, in the context of a financial leasing agreement with definite transfer of ownership, the lessor may no longer demand payment of the leasing instalments from the lessee because he has terminated the leasing agreement on account of non-fulfilment of that agreement by the lessee, but is entitled, under that agreement, to compensation in the amount of all the unpaid leasing instalments that would have fallen due up to the end of the term of the lease?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/17

1.

Must Articles 6 and 16 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as imposing a reference period determined on a rolling basis or as allowing Member States to choose whether to employ a rolling or fixed reference period?

2.

If those provisions are to be interpreted as requiring a rolling reference period, may the possibility afforded by Article 17 to derogate from Article 16(b) relate not only to the duration of the reference period but also to the requirement for a rolling period?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/18

1.

Must […] Article 21[(5), third subparagraph] of Directive [2003/96] (1) be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption which that provision allows Member States to grant to small producers of electricity, provided that they tax the energy products used for the production of that electricity, may apply in circumstances such as those described in paragraph 7 of the present decision for the period prior to 1 January 2011 during which France, as was permitted by the directive, had not yet introduced domestic tax on final consumption of electricity or, accordingly, the exemption of small producers from that tax?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, how must […] Article 14[(1)(a)] and […] Article 21[(5), third subparagraph] of Directive 2003/96 be combined as regards small producers which consume the electricity that they produce for the purposes of their business? Specifically, do those Articles require that there be a minimal level of taxation resulting from either (i) the electricity produced being taxed and the natural gas used being exempted from tax, or (ii) the production of electricity being exempt from tax and the State then being required to tax the natural gas used?

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/19

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Sigma Orionis SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/19

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Sigma Orionis SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/20

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co.KG is ordered to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Alpine Welten Die Bergführer GmbH & Co.KG to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Laboratoires Majorelle to pay the costs.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/22

—

Order an expert report on the deficiencies in the inspection carried out on behalf of the defendant;

—

Establish, first, that (a) the debit note 3241801228, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, by means of which the defendant requests the payment of EUR 481 835,56, in respect of works contract FP7-215952 PERFORM, based on the conclusions of audit inspection 11-ΒΑ135-006, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations, given that the eligible costs for the contract in question amount to EUR 605 217, in respect of which the Union’s support amounts to EUR 490 711, and that the applicant must reimburse to the defendant the amount of EUR 21 171, and not the amount of EUR 481 835,56, and, (b) the debit note 3241801229, sent to the applicant on 15 January 2018, and in which the defendant requests payment of EUR 29 694,10by way of compensation, constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations.

1.

First plea in law, based on performance of the contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:

the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principle of good faith, in so far as the audit inspection provided for was carried out unlawfully by a third party who is not related to the staff of the contractor appointed by the defendant, nor to its expressly approved subcontractors, in respect of whom, during the inspection, issues of impartiality were raised, and acted wrongfully.

2.

Second plea in law based on the arbitration clause:

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

—

order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;

—

order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

—

order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

—

declare that the defendants have incurred non-contractual liability and determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the actual recoverable loss suffered by the applicants;

—

order that the defendants pay the applicants’ costs of the application.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/24

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 6 February 2018 on the application for the waiver of immunity of Steeve Briois 2017/2221 (IMM) adopting the Report of the Legal Affairs Committee A8-0011/2018;

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Steeve Briois the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for non-material damage suffered;

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Steeve Briois the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of recoverable expenses;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all costs in the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’), inasmuch as the statement of Mr Briois that gave rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin is an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol, in that the Parliament misconstrued both the spirit and the letter of that provision by adopting the decision to waive Mr Briois’s immunity and thus rendered that decision invalid.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

In the first place, the applicant submits that the Parliament infringed the principle of equality by treating him differently from other Members of the European Parliament in situations that were at least comparable, if not identical, and consequently the Parliament also infringed the principle of sound administration, which establishes an obligation for the competent institution to assess carefully and impartially all the relevant considerations in the case in question.

In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence allowing a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him to be established.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the rights of the applicant and the principle that the parties should be heard were not sufficiently guaranteed by the exchange of arguments before the Legal Affairs Committee. The applicant therefore submits that the fact that he was not invited to set out his views at a plenary session on the waiver of his immunity was not only contrary to the general principles of law but also at variance with common sense and the majority of parliamentary practices.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/25

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

annul the staff report for 2016 and the decision of 23 May 2017, notified on 28 June 2017, refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression;

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of September 2017 and the implicit decision rejecting, respectively, the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim;

—

order the defendant to pay damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the appraisal procedure set out in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review guidelines (‘ASBR guidelines’), of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, committed by the defendant in adopting the staff report for 2016 (‘the contested staff report’). The applicant raises the following complaints in particular:

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error in the contested staff report since, first, the appraisal is in part based on a task which was not completed on account of sick leave and, secondly, positive appraisal from an extraneous manager was reduced in scope and was not correctly taken into account by the assessors, who also failed to take account of the relevant objectives.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 23 May 2017 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression (‘the ASBR decision’) is based on an unlawful staff report.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ASBR decision was adopted by a non-competent authority since it was adopted by a person who had been temporarily appointed for 6 months and did not have the status required to adopt that decision.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a number of manifest errors in the ASBR decision since, at the time of its adoption, that decision was not able to establish underperformance.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the ASBR guidelines, the ASBR procedure and Article 41 of the Charter, in so far as the ASBR decision lacks any statement of reasons.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/26

—

Declare and rule:

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Parliament made an incorrect interpretation of that provision by adopting the decision not to continue to pay expatriation allowance to the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the Parliament to adopt the contested decision, since the interinstitutional transfer of an official does not constitute a new recruitment and, in consequence, the Parliament cannot use the applicant’s transfer as a pretext to determine, for a second time, his right to the expatriation allowance.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors determining the applicant’s rights, since any administrative act adopted by an institution enjoys a presumption of legality and since, in the present case, the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors gave right to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that he would receive the expatriation allowance for as long as he continued to be posted to Luxembourg.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

—

Declare and rule:

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision, in that, firstly, the Appointing Authority took account of damage to the integrity of the institutions caused by the applicant which had already been remedied and, secondly, the duration of the disciplinary penalty imposed is arbitrary as it has been set by reference to the legal retirement age of the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality vitiating the contested decision by reason of the unlawful failure to take account of the amount of time that has elapsed since the facts occurred, of the infringement of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations during the criminal proceedings and of the applicant’s family situation.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/28

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies and the members concerned; and

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 17(2) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration, inter alia by using unreliable import data, unreliable macroeconomic injury data and unreliable profitability data, and by not allowing other interested parties to comment on the final selection of the sample of Union producers.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation inter alia by failing to take account of the absence of a coincidence in time and by failing to ensure that injury caused by other factors is not attributed to the Chinese imports.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicants and Articles 6(7), 19(1)-(3), 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation inter alia by refusing to provide any access whatsoever to the injury calculations, the price effects and injury elimination level calculations and the normal value determination, by even refusing to provide the requested data in the form of an aggregated version, and by failing to disclose various relevant information, despite having been repeatedly requested to do so.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by failing to take into account all the characteristics of the product control numbers in its price comparison, by failing to provide the necessary information with respect to the product characteristics other than those reflected in the original product control numbers, and by erroneously rejecting the request for adjustment to the normal value address the irregularities resulting from the low volume of production in India, the Commission violated Articles 2(10), 3(2)(a), 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for indirect taxes, the Commission violated Article 2(10)(b) and Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that by relying on data from only one Indian producer for the determination of the selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and profit used for the constructed normal value, instead of using all relevant information available with respect to the analogue country, the Commission violated Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

18.6.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/29