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

(2019/C 288/01)

Last publication

OJ C 280, 19.8.2019

Past publications

OJ C 270, 12.8.2019

OJ C 263, 5.8.2019

OJ C 255, 29.7.2019

OJ C 246, 22.7.2019

OJ C 238, 15.7.2019

OJ C 230, 8.7.2019

These texts are available on:

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

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Italy) — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano

(Case C-524/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 288/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Defendant: Francesco Faggiano

Operative part of the order

There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors, Italy) by decision of 5 July 2016.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Acea Energia SpA (C-406/17), Green Network SpA (C-407/17), Enel Energia SpA (C-408/17) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni C-406/17, C-407/18 and C-408/17), Hera Comm Srl (C-417/17) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica, il Gas e il Sistema Idrico

(C-406/17 to C-408/17 and C-417/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Directive 2009/72/EC - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/73/EC - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2011/83/EU - Aggressive commercial practices - Conclusion of contracts for electricity and natural gas supply which were not requested by consumers - Conclusion of distance or off-premises supply contracts in breach of consumer rights - Competent authority to penalise such conduct)

(2019/C 288/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Acea Energia SpA (C-406/17), Green Network SpA (C-407/17), Enel Energia SpA (C-408/17), Hera Comm Srl (C-417/17)

in the presence of: Adiconsum — Associazione Difesa Consumatori e Ambiente, Movimento Consumatori, Federconsumatori, Gianluca Salvati, Associazione Codici — Centro per i Diritti del Cittadino, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell’ambiente e la tutela dei diritti di utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Tutela Noi Consumatori, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino (C-406/17 to C-408/17)

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (C-406/17 to C-408/17), Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica, il Gas e il Sistema Idrico (C-417/17)

in the presence of: Federconsumatori (C-417/17)

Operative part of the order

Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which conduct such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in concluding supply contracts which were not requested by the consumers or consisting in concluding distance or off-premises supply contracts in breach of consumer rights, must be assessed in the light of the provisions of Directives 2005/29 and 2011/83 respectively, with the result that, according to that national legislation, the sectoral regulator, for the purposes of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, is not competent to penalise such conduct.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas — Lithuania) — TE, UD, YB, ZC v Luminor Bank AB

(Case C-8/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Markets in financial instruments - Natural person who has acquired a derivative financial instrument from a bank - Classification of that person within the meaning of EU law)

(2019/C 288/04)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TE, UD, YB, ZC

Defendant: Luminor Bank AB

Operative part of the order

Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU must be interpreted as not applying to the acquisition of bonds using borrowed funds, such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, in so far as those acquisitions were made prior to 1 November 2007.

The first and second questions, in so far as they relate to Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities, Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements, are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María Teresa Aragón Carrasco and Others v Administración del Estado

(Case C-367/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Comparability of situations - Justification - Clause 5 - Compensation in the event of termination for an objective reason of an employment contract for an indefinite period - No compensation upon the termination of the post of workers employed as auxiliary staff)

(2019/C 288/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: María Teresa Aragón Carrasco, María Eugenia Cotano Montero, María Gloria Ferratges Castellanos, Raquel García Ferratges, Elena Muñoz Mora, Ángela Navas Chillón, Mercedes Noriega Bosch, Susana Rizo Santaella, Desamparados Sánchez Ramos, Lucía Santana Ruiz, Luis Salas Fernández (heir of Lucía Sánchez de la Peña)

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Operative part of the order

1.

Clause 4, point 1, of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is included in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not provide for the payment of any compensation to workers employed as members of auxiliary staff performing duties consisting in positions of trust or involving the performance of special advisory functions, such as the workers at issue in the main proceedings, upon the termination at the employer’s discretion of their post, whereas compensation is allocated to staff employed under a contract for an indefinite period upon the termination of their employment contract for an objective reason.

2.	The second and third questions referred by the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte, Italy) — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

(Case C-425/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Award of public works contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2), first subparagraph, (d) - Grounds for exclusion - Grave professional misconduct - Infringement of the competition rules)

(2019/C 288/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

Defendant: Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

Intervener: Consorzio Stabile Gestione Integrata Servizi Aziendali GISA, La Lucente SpA, Dussmann Service Srl, So.Co.Fat. SC

Operative part of the order

Article 45(2), first subparagraph, (d) of 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 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is interpreted as excluding from the scope of ‘grave professional misconduct’ on the part of an economic operator conduct consisting of infringement of the competition rules, which has been established and penalised by the national competition authority by decision upheld by the courts, and which precludes the contracting authorities from assessing such infringement independently for the purposes of determining whether that economic operator is to be excluded from a tender procedure for the award of a public contract, as a possible outcome.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2019 — Marion Le Pen v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-525/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Parliament - Rules governing the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid)

(2019/C 288/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marion Le Pen (represented by: R. Bosselut, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and C. Burgos, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. F. Jensen, M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

2.	Ms Marion Le Pen shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Pólus Vegas Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-665/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Games of chance - National taxes on the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades - National legislation increasing the amount of a tax five-fold and introducing an additional tax)

(2019/C 288/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pólus Vegas Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Article 56 TFEU, read in the light of the judgment of 11 June 2015, Berlington Hungary and Others (C-98/14, EU:C:2015:386), must be interpreted as meaning, in so far as concerns the operation of slot machines in a Member State, a cross-border situation cannot be presumed to exist on the sole ground that EU citizens from other Member States may avail themselves of such gaming opportunities.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — AQ and Others (C-789/18) and ZQ (C-790/18) v Corte dei Conti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Inps-Gestione (C-789/18)

(Joined Cases C-789/18 and 790/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Civil service - Cumulation of emoluments from activities as employed or self-employed persons in the service of one or more State entities - National legislation providing for a ceiling to such cumulation - Purely internal situation - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AQ and Others (C-789/18) and ZQ (C-790/18)

Defendants: Corte dei Conti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Inps-Gestione C-789/18)

in the presence of: BR and Others (C-789/18)

Operative part of the order

The references for a preliminary ruling introduced by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Italy) by decisions of 7 November 2018 are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz — Germany) — MC v ND

(Case C-827/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 22(1) - Proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property - Restitution of the proceeds from the rental of a property before the transfer of ownership)

(2019/C 288/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kamenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MC

Defendant: ND

Operative part of the order

Article 22(1), first subparagraph, of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings brought by the purchaser of immovable property, seeking the payment of a sum received by the vendor in respect of rent paid by a third party, where that purchaser, although he had taken possession of that property at the time of the payment of that sum, was not yet the owner in law of that property, in accordance with the applicable national legislation, do not constitute proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-9/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Mitliv Exim SRL

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), made by decision of 8 June 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

Order of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 30 April 2019 (request for preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena — Italy) — Azienda USL di Modena v Comune di Sassuolo

(Case C-26/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - National health service - Exemption from property tax - Immovable property leased to a commercial company constituted with blended capital active in the health sector in competition with other healthcare establishments exclusively constituted with private capital)

(2019/C 288/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda USL di Modena

Defendant: Comune di Sassuolo

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Modena (Provincial Tax Court, Modena, Italy), by decision of 25 October 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron — Greece) — WP v Trapeza Peiraios AE

(Case C-105/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Powers and obligations of the national court - Order for payment procedure - Granting of the application to have that order set aside - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WP

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron (Court of First Instance (single judge) of Serres, Greece), by decision of 11 January 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

Appeal brought on 31 January 2019 by WL against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 29 November 2018 in Case T-493/17, WL v ERCEA

(Case C-78/19 P)

(2019/C 288/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

By order of 11 July 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered WL to bear its own costs.

Appeal brought on 15 February 2019 by Edison SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2018 in Case T-471/17, Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)

(Case C-121/19 P)

(2019/C 288/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Edison SpA (represented by: D. Martucci, F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

—	set aside the judgment under appeal, give final judgment on the matter and uphold the action, holding that ‘electricity’ comes under Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification and consequently find that trade mark No 3 315 991 owned by Edison S.p.A. covers, inter alia, ‘electricity’;

—	in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

—	in any event, order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

The General Court erred in stating that the mention of the product ‘electricity’ in the non-exhaustive list drawn up by EUIPO for the submission of declarations for the purposes of Article 28(8) EUTMR (paragraphs 41, 46 and 54) proves that electricity, in its everyday and usual meaning, is not included in Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification. In the first place, the error in law arises from the fact that the appellant’s application to restrict the list of goods designated was submitted on 15 June 2015, while the document to which EUIPO refers was established with Communication No 1/2016 of 8 February 2016. In the second place, it is also an error in law to assume that the exclusion of a term from the list constitutes evidence, when it is no more than a set of non-binding interpretations.

2.

The General Court wrongly held that only tangible goods that spontaneously produce light of themselves may be considered ‘illuminants’. The error in law lies in the fact that it is the competent authorities and economic operators that classify goods in respect of their ability to provide illumination, classifying electricity as a commodity which generates light and profit, and the tangibility of that commodity in the purely physical sense is irrelevant.

3.	The General Court erred in law since, in so far as if it is accepted that ‘fuel’ includes fuel for motors, it is clear that the term ‘fuel’ is to be understood in such a broad manner as to include goods, such as electricity, which by their nature do not cause motors to start by means of combustion.

4.	The General Court made an error of interpretation by considering that electricity is not covered by the term ‘motor fuel’, completely overlooking its functional characteristics.

5.	The General Court manifestly erred in law by holding that the evidence provided by the appellant was insufficient to demonstrate that electricity is included in Class 4.

6.	In addition, the General Court also based its decision on Document 1 submitted by EUIPO, holding that the document was from August 2003, despite the fact that it was clearly dated June 2003.

7.

The General Court merely endorsed a legal situation and decisions for which insufficient grounds were given, despite the admission of evidence submitted by the appellant and EUIPO. To assert that there are electronic vehicles commercially available and then claim that economic operators (the same producers of those vehicles) do not consider electricity to be a fuel, even an alternative fuel, goes against all logic and means that the decisions of EUIPO and the General Court are not substantiated.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 10 April 2019 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea v SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

(Case C-294/19)

(2019/C 288/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant/defendant at first instance: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Respondent/applicant at first instance: SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

Question referred

Must Articles 2 and 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (1) and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the conditions obtaining in the main proceedings, excludes a farmer from payment of the entitlements on the ground that the aquaculture facilities used as arable land do not constitute an ‘agricultural area’ for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 since they are not regarded as eligible land under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS

(Case C-302/19)

(2019/C 288/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: WS

Question referred

Should Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for holders of single permits to reside and work and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker with a single permit from a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those family members live in the third country of origin?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v VR

(Case C-303/19)

(2019/C 288/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: VR

Question referred

Should Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for long-term residents and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker who is a long-term resident and a citizen of a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those individuals live in the third country of origin?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 April 2019 — Ira Invest SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

(Case C-304/19)

(2019/C 288/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant/applicant at first instance: Ira Invest SRL

Respondent/defendant at first instance: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Question referred

Must Article 4(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f), Article 10, Article 21(1) and Article 32(1) to (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, excludes a farmer from payment of entitlements on the ground that land with aquaculture facilities used as arable land does not constitute an ‘agricultural area’ within the meaning of Article 4 of the regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2019 — EB v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

(Case C-326/19)

(2019/C 288/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EB

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Università degli Studi Roma Tre

Questions referred

1.

Although there is no general obligation on Member States to provide for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration, does Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) headed ‘Measures to prevent abuse’, preclude, also in the light of the principle of equivalence, national legislation, such as that laid down in Article 29(2)(d) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 15 June 2015 and Article 36(2) and (5) Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001, which does not allow in respect of university researchers employed on a three-year fixed-term contract, which may be extended for two years pursuant to Article 24(3)(a) of Law No 240 of 2010, the subsequent establishment of a relationship of indefinite duration?

2.

Although there is no general obligation on Member States to provide for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, does Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, headed ‘Measures to prevent abuse’, preclude, also in the light of the principle of equivalence, national legislation, such as that laid down in Article 29(2)(d) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 15 June 2015 and Article 36(2) and (5) Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001, from being applied by the national courts of the Member concerned in such a way that a right to maintain the employment relationship is granted to persons employed by public authorities under a flexible employment contract governed by the rules of employment law, but that right is not conferred, in general, on staff employed on fixed-term contracts by those authorities under administrative law, and (as a result of the above provisions of national law) no other effective measure is available under the national legal system to penalise such abuse with regard to workers?

3.

Although there is no general obligation on Member States to provide for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, does Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, headed ‘Measures to prevent abuse’, preclude …, also in the light of the principle of equivalence, national legislation such as that laid down in Article 24(1) and (3) of Law No 240 of 30 December 2010, which provides for the conclusion and extension for a total period of five years (three years and a possible extension of two years) of fixed-term contracts between researchers and universities, making the conclusion of the contract subject to the availability of ‘the resources for planning for the purposes of carrying out research, teaching, non-curricular activities and student service activities’ and also making extension of the contract subject to a ‘positive appraisal of the teaching and research activities carried out’, without laying down objective and transparent criteria for determining whether the conclusion and renewal of those contracts actually meet a genuine need and whether they are capable of achieving the objective pursued and are necessary for that purpose, and therefore entails a specific risk of abusive use of such contracts, thus rendering them incompatible with the purpose and practical effect of the framework agreement?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Condominio di Milano v Eurothermo SpA

(Case C-329/19)

(2019/C 288/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Condominio di Milano

Defendant: Eurothermo SpA

Question referred

Does the concept of consumer, as adopted by Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) preclude classification as a consumer of an entity (such as the entity comprising owners of apartments in a building (condominio) in Italian law), which does not come within the concept of ‘natural person’ or ‘legal person’, in cases where that entity concludes a contract for purposes which are outside its trade, business or profession and where it is in a position of weakness vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both its bargaining power and its level of knowledge?

---

(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 Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2019 — Eurowings GmbH v GD, HE, IF

(Case C-334/19)

(2019/C 288/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondents: GD, HE, IF

Question referred

Are the provisions of 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, (1) in particular Article 5(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant portion of the flight crew staff — occasioned by their placing themselves on sick leave (‘a wildcat strike’) — of an air carrier that is leasing out an aircraft and crew under a ‘wet lease’ to the ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that regulation, but which does not bear operational responsibility for the flights, has as an effect that the ‘operating air carrier’ is also not able to rely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation, in accordance with the judgment of 17 April 2018, Krüsemann and Others, C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17? (2)

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2)  EU:C:2018:258.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ and OL v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

(Case C-355/19)

(2019/C 288/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Pitești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ and OL

Defendant: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Procurorul General al României

Questions referred

1.

Must the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 (1) be regarded as an act of an institution of the Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

2.

Do the terms, nature and duration of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 fall within the scope of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005? Are the requirements set out in the reports drawn up in the context of that mechanism binding on the Romanian State?

3.

Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to comply with the criteria of the rule of law, also requested in the reports drawn up in the context of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, in the event of the creation, as a matter of urgency, of a section of the prosecutor’s office charged with the exclusive investigation of offences committed by members of the judiciary, which gives rise to particular concerns as regards the fight against corruption and may be used as an additional means of intimidating members of the judiciary and putting pressure on them?

4.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to adopt the necessary measures to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law through the removal of any risk of political influence on criminal proceedings before certain judges, [in] the event of the creation, as a matter of urgency, of a section of the prosecutor’s office charged with the exclusive investigation of offences committed by members of the judiciary, which gives rise to particular concerns as regards the fight against corruption and may be used as an additional means of intimidating members of the judiciary and putting pressure on them?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ v QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL

(Case C-357/19)

(2019/C 288/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, PM, RO, SP, TQ

Defendants: QN, UR, VS, WT, Autoritatea Națională pentru Turism, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, SC Euro Box Promotion SRL

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 1(1)(a) and (b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judicial system, the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania), which adjudicates on the lawfulness of the composition of Chambers hearing the case, in that way creating the conditions for allowing extraordinary actions brought against final judgments delivered in a given period?

2.

Must Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a finding by a body outside the judicial system — binding under national law — of the lack of independence and impartiality of a Chamber which includes a judge responsible for judicial administration who has not been randomly appointed, but on the basis of a transparent rule known to the parties and unchallenged by them, applicable to all the cases dealt with by that same chamber?

3.	Must the primacy of EU law be interpreted as allowing the national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court, handed down in a case concerning a constitutional dispute, binding under national law?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Galați (Romania) lodged on 7 May 2019 — XU and Others v S.C. Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN S.A. and Credit Europe Bank NV

(Case C-364/19)

(2019/C 288/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Galați

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: XU, YV, ZW, AU, BZ, CA, DB, EC

Respondents and cross-appellants: S.C. Credit Europe Ipotecar IFN S.A., Credit Europe Bank NV

Questions referred

1.

Are Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as interpreted in Case C-186/16, Andriciuc and Others, to be interpreted as meaning that, where the contract contains a term relating to exchange rate risk that reflects a provision of national law, national courts are required to examine as a first priority the relevance of the exclusion laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive, or instead the trader’s compliance with the obligation to provide information governed by Article 4(2) of the directive, without first assessing the relevance of the provisions of Article 1(2) of the directive?

2.

Are Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a failure to comply with the obligation to inform the consumer prior to the conclusion of the loan agreement, the trader may rely on the provisions of Article 1(2) of the directive, so that a contractual term relating to exchange rate risk that reflects a provision of national law is excluded from any assessment of whether the contractual terms are unfair?

---

(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 Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2019 — FD v Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg

(Case C-365/19)

(2019/C 288/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FD

Defendant: Staatliches Amt für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt Mittleres Mecklenburg

Question referred

Does Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) 1307/2013 (1) — possibly in conjunction with Article 28(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 639/2014 (2) — establish a legal right to allocation of payment entitlements for the 2016 claim year for a young farmer even when, on the basis of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 1307/2013, he has already been allocated payment entitlements free of charge from the 2015 national ceiling corresponding to his area of land at that time?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2019 — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

(Case C-374/19)

(2019/C 288/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Question referred

Does a taxable person who produces an investment object with regard to taxable use with entitlement to input tax deduction (in this case: construction of a building for the operation of a cafeteria) have to adjust the input tax deduction under Article 185(1) and Article 187 of the VAT Directive (1) if he ceases the sales activity justifying the input tax deduction (in this case: operation of the cafeteria) and the investment object now remains unused in the scope of the previously taxable use?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

(Case C-380/19)

(2019/C 288/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendants: Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

Questions referred

1.

Does the information obligation under Article 13(2) of the Directive, (1) to provide the information pursuant to Article 13(1) in the general terms and conditions, already arise when the trader makes the general terms and conditions available for download on his website, on which no contracts are concluded?

2.	If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions in such a case if he provides the information not in the file made available for download, but elsewhere on the company’s website?

3.

Does the trader meet his obligation to provide the information in the general terms and conditions if he provides the consumer with — in addition to a document containing the general terms and conditions — a list of prices and services also drawn up by the trader in a separate document containing the information pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 May 2019 — SC Banca E S.A. v G.D.

(Case C-381/19)

(2019/C 288/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Banca E S.A.

Respondent: G.D.

Question referred

Given the primacy of EU law, must the principles of legal certainty and effectiveness be interpreted as precluding, in disputes concerning the protection of consumer rights, the alteration of the procedural rules, after the consumer has brought an action before the courts, by means of a binding decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), to which effect is given in a law amending the Codul de procedură civilă (Code of Civil Procedure), which institutes a new means of appeal, one that can be used by the trader, with the result that the duration of the proceedings is extended and the costs of resolving the dispute are increased?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 22 May 2019 — AX v Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

(Case C-397/19)

(2019/C 288/30)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AX

Defendant: Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Questions referred

1.

Is the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, (1) to be regarded as an act of an institution of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, and therefore amenable to interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

2.

Does the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, constitute an integral part of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed by Romania in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005, and must it be interpreted and applied in the light of the provisions of that treaty? Are the requirements set out in the reports drawn up in the context of that mechanism binding on Romania and, if so, is a national court which is responsible for applying, within its sphere of jurisdiction, provisions of EU law required to ensure the application of those rules, where necessary refusing, of its own motion, to apply provisions of national legislation that are contrary to the requirements set out in the reports drawn up pursuant to that mechanism?

3.

Is Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on Romania to comply with the requirements laid down in the reports drawn up pursuant to the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), established by Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, forms part of the Member State’s obligation to observe the principles of the rule of law?

4.

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) thereof, and in particular the obligation to observe the values of the rule of law, preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 96(3)(a) of Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors, which defines, succinctly and in the abstract, a ‘judicial error’ as the performance of a procedural act in clear breach of provisions of substantive or procedural law, without specifying the nature of the provisions infringed, the scope of application of those provisions, ratione materiae and ratione temporis, in the proceedings, the methods, time limits and procedures for establishing infringement of legal provisions, or the authority competent to establish infringement of those legal provisions, and thus creates a risk of pressure being indirectly exerted on the judiciary?

5.

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) thereof, and in particular the obligation to observe the values of the rule of law, preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 96(3)(b) of Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors, which defines a ‘judicial error’ as the delivery of a final judgment that is manifestly contrary to the law or inconsistent with the factual situation established by the evidence taken in the course of the proceedings, without defining the procedure for establishing inconsistency and without defining in specific terms what is meant by that inconsistency of the judgment vis-à-vis the applicable legal provisions or the factual situation, and thus creates a risk that the interpretation of the law and the evidence by the judiciary (judges and prosecutors) will be hindered?

6.

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) thereof, and in particular the obligation to observe the values of the rule of law, preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 96(3) of Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors, pursuant to which the civil liability of a member of the judiciary (a judge or prosecutor) vis-à-vis the State is established solely on the basis of the State’s own assessment, and, where appropriate, the advisory report of the [Judicial] Inspectorate, regarding the question of the intention or gross negligence of the judge or prosecutor in the commission of the material error, without that judge or prosecutor having the opportunity fully to exercise his rights of defence, and which thus creates the risk of the procedure for establishing the liability of the judge or prosecutor vis-à-vis the State being commenced and completed arbitrarily?

7.

Does Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the obligation to observe the values of the rule of law, preclude a provision of national legislation, such as the last sentence of Article 539(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read together with Article 541(2) and (3) thereof, whereby a defendant who has been acquitted on the merits, implicitly and sine die, is provided with an extraordinary sui generis means of appeal against a final judgment on the lawfulness of pre-trial detention, an appeal which is to be heard solely by a civil court, in the event that the unlawfulness of the pre-trial detention has not been established by a decision of a criminal court, in breach of the principle that legal provisions must be predictable and accessible, the principle of the specialisation of judges and the principle of legal certainty?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ 2006 L 354, p. 56).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2019 — BY

(Case C-398/19)

(2019/C 288/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: BY

Other party: General Prosecutor’s Office in Berlin

Questions referred

1.

Do the principles resulting from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15) (1) in relation to the application of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU in the case where a third country requests the extradition of a Union citizen also apply if the individual sought moved his centre of interest to the requested Member State at a time when he was not yet a Union citizen?

2.

Is the home Member State that has been informed of an extradition request obliged, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15), to request that the requesting third country provide the case files for the purpose of examining whether to take over the prosecution?

3.

Is a Member State that has been requested by a third country to extradite a Union citizen obliged, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15), to refuse extradition and to take over the criminal prosecution itself if it is possible for it to do so under its national law?

---

(1)  EU:C:2016:630.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Vos Aannemingen BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-405/19)

(2019/C 288/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vos Aannemingen BVBA

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that expenditure also benefits a third party — as is the case where, in connection with the sale of apartments, a project promoter pays advertising costs, administrative costs and estate agents’ commission, which also benefit the landowners — does not preclude the value added tax (VAT) charged on those costs from being fully deductible, provided that it is established that there is a direct and immediate link between the expenditure and the economic activity of the taxable person and that the advantage to the third party is of secondary importance compared to the requirements of the taxable person’s business?

2.	Does that principle apply also where the costs in question are not general costs but costs attributable to specific output transactions which may or may not be subject to VAT, such as in this case the sale, on the one hand, of apartments and, on the other, of land?

3.	Does the fact that the taxable person is able/entitled to pass on part of the expenditure to the third party whom the expenditure benefits, but does not do so, have any impact on the question of the deductibility of the VAT on those costs?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Katoen Natie Bulk Terminals NV, General Services Antwerp NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-407/19)

(2019/C 288/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Katoen Natie Bulk Terminals NV, General Services Antwerp NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

1.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 106(1) of the TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule laid down in Article 1 of the Koninklijk Besluit van 5 juli 2004 (Royal Decree of 5 July 2004) ‘betreffende de erkenning van havenarbeiders in de havengebieden die onder het toepassingsgebied vallen van de wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid’ (‘on the recognition of dockers in the port areas falling within the scope of the Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work’), read in conjunction with Article 2 of the aforementioned decree of 5 July 2004, namely, the rule that the dockers referred to in Article 1(1), first subparagraph, of the aforementioned Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, upon their recognition by the administratieve commissie (Administrative Commission), composed jointly, on the one hand, of members designated by the employer organisations represented in the relevant joint subcommittee and, on the other hand, of members designated by the employee organisations represented on the joint subcommittee, are either included in the pool of dockers or are not included in that pool, whereby recognition for the purpose of inclusion takes into account the need for manpower and also takes into account that a decision-making deadline has not been prescribed for that Administrative Commission and that against its recognition decisions provision has been made only for a jurisdictional appeal?

2.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) of the TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule introduced by Article 4(1), subparagraphs 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004 as replaced or inserted respectively by Article 4, subparagraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the contested Koninklijk Besluit van 10 juli 2016 (Royal Decree of July 10, 2016), namely, the rule that lays down as a condition for recognition as a docker that the worker (a) has been declared medically fit by the external service for prevention and protection at the work with which the employer organisation designated as an agent under Article 3a of the Wet van 8 juni 1972‘betreffende de havenarbeid’ (Law of 8 June 1972‘organising dock work’) is associated, and (b) has passed the psychotechnical tests conducted by the body designated for that purpose by the recognised employer organisation designated as an agent under the same Article 3a of the Wet van 8 juni 1972, (c) has attended for three weeks the preparatory courses on safety at work and the attainment of professional competence and has passed the final test and (d) already be in possession of an employment contract in the case of a docker who is not included in the pool, which, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, means that foreign dockers must be able to prove that they satisfies comparable conditions in another Member State so that, for the purpose of the application of the contested rule, they are no longer subject to those conditions?

3.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) of the TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule introduced by Article 2(3) of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, as replaced by Article 2 of the contested Royal Decree of 10 July 2016, namely, the rule whereby the dockers who are not included in the pool and who are therefore directly recruited by an employer on an employment contract in accordance with the Wet van 3 juli 1978‘betreffende de arbeidsovereenkomsten’ (Law of 3 July 1978‘on employment contracts’) have the duration of their recognition limited to the duration of that employment contract so that each time a new recognition procedure must be started?

4.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule introduced by Article 13/1 of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, as inserted by Article 17 of the Royal Decree of 10 July 2016, namely, the transitional measure whereby the employment contract referred to in Question 3 must initially be concluded for an indefinite period: from 1 July 2017 for at least two years from 1 July 2018 for at least one year, from 1 July 2019 for at least six months, from 1 July 2020 for a period to be freely determined?

5.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule laid down in Article 15/1 of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, as inserted by Article 18 of the Royal Decree of 10 July 2016, namely, the (transitional) measure whereby the dockers recognised under the old rule are automatically recognised as dockers in the pool, as a result of which the possibility of direct employment (on a permanent contract) of those dockers by an employer is hindered and the employers are prevented from engaging and retaining good workers by concluding a permanent contract with them directly and offering them job security in accordance with the general rules of labour law?

6.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule introduced by Article 4(2) of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, as replaced by Article 4(7) of the Royal Decree of 10 July 2016, namely, the rule whereby a collective labour agreement determines the conditions and detailed rules under which a docker can be employed in a port area other than the one where he was recognised, thereby limiting the mobility of workers between port areas without the regulator itself providing clarity as to what those terms and conditions might be?

7.

Should Article 49, 56, 45, 34, 35, 101 or 102 of the TFEU, whether or not in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU, be interpreted as precluding the rule introduced by Article 1(3) of the Royal Decree of 5 July 2004, as replaced by Article 1, subparagraph 2, of the Royal Decree of 10 July 2016, namely, the rule whereby (logistics) workers who perform work within the meaning of Article 1 of the Koninklijk Besluit van 12 januari 1973‘tot oprichting en vaststelling van de benaming en van de bevoegdheid van het Paritair Comité voor het Havenbedrijf’ (Royal Decree of 12 January 1973‘establishing and determining the appointment and powers of the Joint Ports Committee’) at locations where goods which, in preparation for their further distribution or dispatch, undergo a transformation that leads indirectly to demonstrable added value, must have a security certificate, whereby that security certificate constitutes recognition within the meaning of the Law of 8 June 1972‘organising dock work’, taking into account that that certificate is requested by the employer who has signed an employment contract with a worker for activities in that sense to be performed and issued upon presentation of the employment contract and identity card and whereby the detailed rules of the procedure to be followed are laid down by collective agreement, without the regulator providing clarity on that point?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Johannes Dietrich v Hessischer Rundfunk

(Case C-422/19)

(2019/C 288/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Johannes Dietrich

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

Questions referred

1.

Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?

2.

Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative: Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk

(Case C-423/19)

(2019/C 288/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Norbert Häring

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

Questions referred

1.

Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?

2.

Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative: Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2019 — Cabinet de avocat UR v Administrația Sector 3 a Finanțelor Publice prin Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Others

(Case C-424/19)

(2019/C 288/36)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Cabinet de avocat UR

Defendants and respondents: Administrația Sector 3 a Finanțelor Publice prin Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București, Administrația Sector 3 a Finanțelor Publice, MJ, NK

Questions referred

1.	In the context of the application of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (on the common system of value added tax), (1) does the concept of ‘taxable person’ include persons who practice the profession of lawyer?

2.

Does the principle of the primacy of EU law permit an exception to be made, in subsequent proceedings, to the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judicial decision in which it has been established, in essence, that, in accordance with national value added tax legislation, as it is interpreted and applied, lawyers do not supply goods, do not carry out an economic activity and do not conclude contracts for the supply of services, but instead conclude contracts for legal assistance?

---

(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 Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2019 — Joint-stock insurance company ‘Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group’ AD v Insurance company ‘Olympic’

(Case C-427/19)

(2019/C 288/37)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joint-stock insurance company ‘Bulstrad Vienna Insurance Group’ AD

Defendant: Insurance company ‘Olympic’

Question referred

1.

When interpreting Article 630 of the Kodeks za zastrahovaneto (Insurance Code) in the light of Article 274 of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), is it to be assumed that the decision of an authority of a Member State to withdraw authorisation from an insurer and appoint a provisional liquidator for it without court-ordered winding-up proceedings having been opened constitutes a ‘decision to open winding-up proceedings’?

2.

If the law of the Member State in which an insurer from which the licence has been withdrawn has its head office, and in respect of which a provisional liquidator has been appointed, provides that, in the event that a provisional liquidator has been appointed, all court proceedings against that company must be stayed, must that legislation be applied by the courts of the other Member States, even if this is not expressly provided for in their national law, pursuant to Article 274 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)?

---

(1)  OJ 2009, L 335 p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 5 June 2019 — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

(Case C-429/19)

(2019/C 288/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Remondis GmbH

Defendant and respondent: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

Other party: Landkreis Neuwied

Question referred

Is Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cooperation does indeed exist if a contracting authority responsible for waste disposal within its territory performs a disposal task — which is incumbent on it under national law and for the performance of which several operations are required — not entirely by itself, but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for waste disposal within its territory to carry out one of the necessary operations in return for consideration?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2019 — SC C. F. SRL v A. J. F. P. M., D. G. R. F. P. C.

(Case C-430/19)

(2019/C 288/39)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC C. F. SRL

Defendants: A. J. F. P. M., D. G. R. F. P. C.

Questions referred

1.

In light of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, as outlined to date in the case-law of the Court of Justice (Solvay, Sopropé ‒ Organizações de Calçado Lda and Ispas), may or must an administrative fiscal document issued to an individual be declared null and void if that individual has not been allowed access to the information on the basis of which that document was issued, notwithstanding the fact that reference is made in that document to certain information on the administrative file?

2.

Do the principles of neutrality, proportionality and equivalence preclude the exercise of the right to deduct VAT and corporation tax in the case of a company the conduct of which with regard to fiscal matters is beyond reproach and which has been denied the right to deduct corporation tax on account of the fiscal conduct of its suppliers, which is alleged to be improper on the basis of factors such as a lack of human resources or a lack of means of transport, in the case where, in addition, the tax authority has adduced no evidence of any activity that suggests fiscal and/or criminal liability on the part of those suppliers?

3.

Is a national practice inconsistent with EU law if, pursuant to that practice, the right to deduct VAT and corporation tax is subject to the possession of other supporting documents in addition to the tax invoice, such as estimates of expenditure or reports on the progress of works, even though such additional supporting documents have not been clearly and precisely defined in the national tax legislation?

4.	In light of the judgment in WebMindLicenses, can the situation in which a taxable person purchases goods and services from a taxable person which benefits from a different tax regime from that of the taxable person in question constitute tax evasion?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Föreningen Skydda Skogen

(Case C-473/19)

(2019/C 288/40)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Föreningen Skydda Skogen

Defendants: Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, B.A.B.

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibition covers only those species which were listed in Annex 1 to Directive 2009/147, or are at some level at risk, or are suffering a long-term decline in population?

2.

Are the terms ‘intentional killing/disruption/destruction’ in Article 5(a)-(d) of Directive 2009/147 and of Article 12(a)-(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, should the purpose of the measures be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of species (for example, forestry measures or land development), there must be a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species caused by the measures to apply the prohibitions?

3.

If the answer to any part of the second question is that harm at a level other than the individual level is to be assessed in order for the prohibition to apply, is the assessment therefore to be carried out on any of the following scales or at any of these levels: a. a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union; b. the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species); c. the meta-population concerned; d. the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?

4.

Is the expression ‘deterioration or destruction’ as regards the animals’ breeding range in Article 12(d) of Directive 92/43 to be interpreted as excluding a national practice which means that, in spite of precautionary measures, the continuous ecological functionality (CEF) of the habitat of the species concerned is lost, whether by harm, destruction or deterioration, directly or indirectly, individually or cumulatively, so that the prohibition is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned, at one of the levels referred to in question 3, is likely to deteriorate?

5.

If the answer to the fourth question is negative, that is to say that harm of a level other than one leading to the habitat in the individual area being assessed in order for the prohibition to be applied, is the assessment thus to be made on any of the following scales or at any of these levels: a. a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union; b. the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species); c. the meta-population concerned; d. the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range? Questions 2 and 4 posed by the mark- och miljödomstolen (Land and Environment Court, Sweden) include the question of whether the strict protection in the directives ceases to be applicable to species for which the directive’s objective (favourable conservation status) has been achieved.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening

(Case C-474/19)

(2019/C 288/41)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening

Defendants: Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, U.T.B.

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibition covers only those species which were listed in Annex 1 to Directive 2009/147, or are at some level at risk, or are suffering a long-term decline in population?

2.

Are the terms ‘intentional killing/disruption/destruction’ in Article 5(a)-(d) of Directive 2009/147 and of Article 12(a)-(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, should the purpose of the measures be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of species (for example, forestry measures or land development), there must be a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species caused by the measures to apply the prohibitions?

3.

If the answer to any part of the second question is that harm at a level other than the individual level is to be assessed in order for the prohibition to apply, is the assessment therefore to be carried out on any of the following scales or at any of these levels: a. a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union; b. the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species); c. the meta-population concerned; d. the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?

4.

Is the expression ‘deterioration or destruction’ as regards the animals’ breeding range in Article 12(d) of Directive 92/43 to be interpreted as excluding a national practice which means that, in spite of precautionary measures, the continuous ecological functionality (CEF) of the habitat of the species concerned is lost, whether by harm, destruction or deterioration, directly or indirectly, individually or cumulatively, so that the prohibition is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned, at one of the levels referred to in question 3, is likely to deteriorate?

5.

If the answer to the fourth question is negative, that is to say that harm of a level other than one leading to the habitat in the individual area being assessed in order for the prohibition to be applied, is the assessment thus to be made on any of the following scales or at any of these levels: a. a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union; b. the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species); c. the meta-population concerned; d. the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range? Questions 2 and 4 posed by the mark- och miljödomstolen (Land and Environment Court, Sweden) include the question of whether the strict protection in the directives ceases to be applicable to species for which the directive’s objective (favourable conservation status) has been achieved.

---

(1)  OJ 2010, L 20, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB

(Case C-476/19)

(2019/C 288/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Defendant: Combinova AB

Question referred

A customs debt on importation or exportation incurred under Article 79 is to be extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k) (1) if there is sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods have not been used or consumed and have been removed from the customs territory of the Union. Does the term ‘used’ mean that goods have been processed or refined for the purpose for which authorisation was granted to a company for those goods, or does the term concern a use which goes beyond that processing or refining? Is it relevant whether the use takes place before or after the customs debt arose?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2019 — Ville de Verviers v J

(Case C-483/19)

(2019/C 288/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ville de Verviers

Respondent: J

Questions referred

1.

Does the fact that the social partners, by means of Opinion of No 1342 … of the Conseil national de travail, decided to make use of the option to exclude from the scope of the Framework Agreement in question, referred to in clause 2(2)(a) and (b) thereof, absolve the Belgian legislature from taking, with regard to employment contracts which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme, specific, objective and concrete measures to ensure that the Framework Agreement’s objectives are guaranteed to workers engaged in subsidised employment?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, that is to say the Belgian State is not relieved of its obligations under Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June on fixed-term work, does clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement preclude a provision of national law which, like Article 10 of the Law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts, authorises having recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts in breach of the strict conditions relating to maximum duration and renewal laid down by Article 10a of that law, provided that the public employer establishes ‘legitimate reasons’ not otherwise specified in that law which justify the use of unlimited successive fixed-term employment contracts?

3.

Again, if the answer to the first question is in the negative, does clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement impose the obligation, on the national court hearing a case between a public employer and a worker employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded within the framework of various training, integration and retraining programmes, to examine the appropriateness of concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts in the light of the ‘objective reasons’ set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union? In such a case, can the ‘legitimate reasons’ put forward by the public employer be considered to be ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts in breach of the conditions laid down by Article 10a, cited above, in order, on the one hand, to prevent and tackle abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts where the needs covered by those contracts are not of a temporary nature but are rather fixed and permanent needs in terms of social cohesion within an insecure population and, on the other, to take account of the specific objectives of those vocational reinsertion contracts concluded within the framework of that social employment policy established by the Belgian State and the Walloon Region and which is heavily dependent on public subsidies?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

(Case C-490/19)

(2019/C 288/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier

Defendant: Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 (1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 (2) be interpreted as prohibiting solely the use by a third party of the registered name, or must they be interpreted as prohibiting the presentation of a product protected by a designation of origin, in particular the reproduction of the shape or the appearance which are characteristic of it, which is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product, even if the registered name is not used?

---

(1)  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)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

Order of the President of the Court of 29 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Gmalieva s.r.o., Manfred Naderhirn, in the presence of: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann von Linz-Land

(Case C-633/17) (1)

(2019/C 288/45)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 17 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias — Spain) — Unión Insular de CC.OO. de Lanzarote v Swissport Spain Aviation Services Lanzarote S.L.

(Case C-167/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

(Case C-188/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/47)

Language of the case: Slovenian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Sens — France) — X

(Case C-562/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/48)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 10 May 2019 — Apple Distribution International v European Commission, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-633/18 P) (1)

(2019/C 288/49)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

Order of the President of the of the Court of 12 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — British Airways plc v MF

(C-643/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/50)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava V — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against R.B.

(Case C-149/19) (1)

(2019/C 288/51)

Language of the case: Slovak

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

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — GB v Decker KFZ-Handels u. -Reparatur GmbH, Volkswagen AG

(Case C-244/19) (1)

(2019/C 288/52)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — NeXovation v Commission

(Case T-353/15) (1)

(State aid - Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races - Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on competitive position - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage - Action for annulment - Interested party - Legal interest in bringing an action - Admissibility - Breach of procedural rights - No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Complaint - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Diligent and impartial examination - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 288/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NeXovation, Inc. (Hendersonville, United States) (represented initially by A. von Bergwelt, F. Henkel and M. Nordmann, and subsequently by A. von Bergwelt and M. Nordmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be considered together with the substance of the case;

2.	Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be dismissed;

3.	Dismisses the action;

4.	Orders NeXovation, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Ja zum Nürburgring v Commission

(Case T-373/15) (1)

(State aid - Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races - Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on competitive position - Association - Status of negotiator - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage - Action for annulment - Interested party - Legal interest in bringing an action - Admissibility - Breach of procedural rights of interested parties - No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure - Complaint - Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible - Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 288/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ja zum Nürburgring eV (Nürburg, Germany) (represented initially by D. Frey, M. Rudolph and S. Eggerath, and subsequently by D. Frey and M. Rudolph, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be dismissed;

2.	Dismisses the action;

3.	Orders Ja zum Nürburgring eV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2019 — Fulmen v Council

(Case T-405/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds - Compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the inclusion and retention of its name on lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage)

(2019/C 288/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fulmen (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Aresu and D. Gauci, and subsequently by A. Aresu and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p.39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281 p 81, ), and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p.1), by which the name of the applicant was included and retained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Fulmen compensation of EUR 50 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Fulmen, the Council and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB

(Case T-466/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Time limit for bringing an action - Delay - Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, and subsequently by J. Seitz and D. Flore, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, secondly, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2.	Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);

3.	Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-20/17) (1)

(State aid - Hungarian tax on the turnover from the broadcasting or publication of advertisements - Progressivity of tax rates - Deduction from the basis of assessment of the tax of 50 % of the losses carried forward for companies not generating a profit in 2013 - Decision characterising the measures as aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)

(2019/C 288/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.-Z. Fehér, G. Koós and E.-Zs. Tóth, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover (OJ 2017 L 49, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover;

2.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

3.	Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)

(Case T-307/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes - Absolute grounds for invalidity - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Form of use unable to be taken into account - Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations - Inversion of the colour scheme)

(2019/C 288/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde; Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1515/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shoe Branding Europe and Adidas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders adidas AG to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA;

3.	Orders Marques to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Marriott Worldwide v EUIPO — AC Milan (AC MILAN)

(Case T-28/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark AC MILAN - Earlier EU word marks AC and AC HOTELS BY MARRIOTT and earlier EU figurative mark AC HOTELS MARRIOTT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the mark AC - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marriott Worldwide Corp. (Bethesda, Maryland, United States) (represented by: A. Reid, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2017 (Case R 356/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Marriott Worldwide and AC Milan

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Marriott Worldwide Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Brita v EUIPO (Shape of a faucet)

(Case T-213/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a faucet - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 (Case R 1864/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a faucet as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Brita GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Bodegas Altún v EUIPO — Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN)

(Case T-334/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ANA DE ALTUN - Earlier national figurative mark ANNA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/61)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Altún, SL (Baños de Ebro, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Codorníu, SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented initially by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Ceballos Rodríguez and E. Stoyanov Edissonov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 173/2018-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Codorníu and Bodegas Altún.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 March 2018 (Case R 173/2018-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún, SL;

3.	Orders Codorníu, SA to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Bodegas Altún.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Gibson Brands v EUIPO — Wilfer (Shape of a guitar body)

(Case T-340/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a guitar body - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 288/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gibson Brands, Inc. (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) (represented by: initially K. Hughes, Solicitor, and A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers, and subsequently A. Renck and C. Stöber)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hans-Peter Wilfer (Markeneukirchen, Germany) (represented by O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2018 (Case R 415/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wilfer and Gibson Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Gibson Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)

(Case T-366/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUIMOX - Earlier EU word mark ZYMOX - Obligation to state reasons - Notification of a decision of the Board of Appeal - Good faith and diligence on the part of the addressee - Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pet King Brands, Inc (Bartlett, Illinois, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter and S. Bauer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Virbac SA (Carros, France) (represented by D.-I. Tayer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pet King Brands and Virbac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5) in so far as it concerns ‘veterinary preparations; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’, ‘veterinary preparations and animal health care products, including antibiotics for animals; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’ and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

(Case T-377/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by EMA containing information submitted by the applicants in the context of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva - Decision to grant a third party access to a document - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings)

(2019/C 288/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Intercept Pharma Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (New York, New York, United States), (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos and H. Kerr-Peterson, Solicitors, and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: initially by S. Marino, S. Drosos, A. Rusanov and T. Jabłoński, and subsequently by S. Marino, S. Drosos, T. Jabłoński, R. Pita and G. Gavriilidou, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EMA decision ASK-40399 of 15 May 2018, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (Premiere)

(Case T-479/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Premiere - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 288/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino, D. Walicka and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 (Case R 2365/2017-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Premiere as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2019 — W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen v EUIPO (Kordes’ Rose Monique)

(Case T-569/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Kordes’ Rose Monique - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of a plant variety denomination - Essential elements - Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(m) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 288/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co KG (Klein Offenseth-Sparrieshoop, Germany (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Kordes’ Rose Monique as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1929/2017-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by W. Kordes’ Söhne Rosenschulen GmbH & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

Action brought on 20 June 2019 — Parliament v AXA Assurances Luxembourg and Others

(Case T-384/19)

(2019/C 288/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Paladini and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents, and C. Point and P. Hédouin, lawyers)

Defendants: AXA Assurances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), La Luxembourgeoise SA (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Delta Lloyd Schadenverzekering NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	Find that the water damage caused at the ‘Konrad Adenauer’ East site when heavy rainfall occurred, on 27 and 30 May 2016, comes within the scope of the ‘construction all-risk’ insurance policy taken out with the defendants;

—

Accordingly, order the defendants to reimburse the expenses claimed to the European Parliament, in the amount of EUR 779 902,87 and in particular: — Order AXA Assurance Luxembourg SA to reimburse 50 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 389 951,44; — Order Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA to reimburse 20 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 155 980,57; — Order La Luxembourgeoise SA to reimburse 20 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 155 980,57; — Order Delta Lloyd Schadenverzekering NV to reimburse 10 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 155 980,57; — plus statutory interest for late payment, from 22 December 2017, the rate of which is equal to the sum of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations plus eight percentage points;

—

In the alternative, should the requests relating to the first and second heads of claim not be upheld, order the defendants jointly and severally to pay for the damage caused by the failure to fulfil obligations under Article I.13.2 of the ‘construction all-risk’ insurance policy, in the amount of EUR 779 902,87;

—

Order the defendants to reimburse the European Parliament in respect of survey fees, in the amount of EUR 16 636,00, and in particular: — Order AXA Assurance Luxembourg SA to reimburse 50 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 8 318,00; — Order Bâloise Assurances Luxembourg SA to reimburse 20 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 3 327,20; — Order La Luxembourgeoise SA to reimburse 20 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 3 327,20; — Order Delta Lloyd Schadenverzekering NV to reimburse 10 % of the abovementioned amount, i.e. EUR 1 663,60; — plus statutory interest for late payment, from 22 December 2017, the rate of which is equal to the sum of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations plus eight percentage points;

—	Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on its right to insurance cover in respect of the claim which arose in May 2016. In support of that plea, it submits that the insurance cover exclusion clauses invoked by the defendants are ineffective. In that connection, the applicant relies on the following arguments:

—	The insurance cover exclusion clause relating to flooding was misinterpreted by the defendants. It is clear from the context and provisions of the contract that the word ‘flooding’ refers to natural disasters, and not water ingress on premises that are usually dry,

—	The insurance cover exclusion clause relating to any natural disaster is inapplicable. Natural disasters are exhaustively listed by the contract and heavy rainfall, such as that in May 2016, does not come within the scope of that definition.

—	The insurance cover exclusion clause relating to inadequate sewer provision was misinterpreted by the defendants. The provisions of the contract refer to inadequate sewer provision in the sense of the insufficient capacity of the public sewage network.

—	The insurance cover exclusion clause relating to normally foreseeable or unavoidable damage, or damage caused by a failure to follow best practice is invalid or, in any event, inapplicable in the present case.

—	The exclusion clause relied upon by the defendants fails to satisfy the condition, laid down by Luxembourg law, whereby cases of gross negligence which are excluded from insurance cover must be expressly and exhaustively determined by the contract.

—	The facts which allegedly support the applicability of such a clause are not sufficient to establish either the inevitability of the damage or the failure on the part of the insured to follow best practice.

In support of its request in the alternative, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural obligations set out in the contract, on account of the interruption ante tempore of survey operations.

Action brought on 24 June 2019 — CQ v Court of Auditors

(Case T-386/19)

(2019/C 288/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CQ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible and well-founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

—

consequently: — annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors of 11 April 2019, notified on 15 April 2019, classifying the sum of EUR 153 407,58 as undue payment and ordering the recovery of that sum of EUR 153 407,58 (plus interest at the rate of 3.5% from 31 May 2019); — in so far as necessary, annul the two decisions of 4 June 2019 and 7 June 2019 of the Accounting Officer of the Court of Auditors; — therefore, order the defendant to reimburse the sum of EUR 153 495,84 (EUR 153 407,58 (principal sum) plus EUR 88.26 by way of late payment interest attributable to the applicant) plus late payment interest at the rate of 3.5% until full payment; — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered; — order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and its final report are unlawful.

2.	Second plea in law alleging, first, that the defendant did not exercise its discretion in particular as the authorising body, second, infringement of its obligation to the prove the accusation made against the applicant and, third, infringement of its obligation to state reasons.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, and alleging that there were manifest errors of assessment.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the adage that criminal law has precedence over administrative law.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), or of Article 94 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

Action brought on 26 June 2019 — DF and DG v EIB

(Case T-387/19)

(2019/C 288/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DF and DG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

and accordingly;

—	annul the decisions refusing to grant DF and DG the installation allowance when they returned from external offices (decisions taken on 6 March 2018 and 28 February 2019, respectively);

—	in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 19 March 2019 (in respect of DF) and 27 March 2019 (in respect of DG) by which the EIB considered that there was no need to initiate the conciliation procedure since their complaints were ‘manifestly unfounded’;

—	in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 14 June 2019 confirming the refusal to grant the installation allowance;

—	order the defendant to pay the installation allowance to both of the applicants, plus default interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, until full payment;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, as interpreted by the European Investment Bank (EIB), of Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Regulations, in so far as the new interpretation of the rule laid down in those provisions is not consistent with the objective it is supposed to pursue.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights, infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of transitional arrangements, and infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty of care.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 25 June 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission

(Case T-399/19)

(2019/C 288/70)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Buczkowska and M. Trepka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission decision of 17 April 2019 concerning proceedings under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices, ending proceedings AT.40497 in accordance with Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (1) and dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant on 9 March 2017 (‘PGNiG’s complaint’). — The applicant seeks the annulment of the part of the decision which relates to the grounds of PGNiG’s complaint concerning: (i) the limitation of the supply of gas to customers in several Member States of the European Union, including to the applicant, in the 2014/2015 winter season and (ii) rendering the conclusion, by the applicant, of a contract for the supplementary supply of gas dependent upon obtaining commitments unconnected with the contract concerning, inter alia, greater control over the Yamal Gas Pipeline. — As a procedural precaution, should the Court find a partial annulment of the decision not to be possible, the applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision in its entirety;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision which constituted an abuse of power, inasmuch as: (i) the Commission adopted a decision de facto finding that Article 102 TFEU does not apply to the anti-competitive practices of PJSC Gazprom and Gazprom Export LLC due to the existence of state coercion stemming from domestic law of the Russian Federation, and did so on an incorrect legal basis, that is to say on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU instead of on the basis of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81[EC] and 82 [EC] (2) read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU, that is to say, in particular, in omitting to take into account the observations of the Member States of the European Union, (ii) the Commission initiated proceedings AT.40497 and conducted those proceedings with the aim of restricting the applicant’s right to be heard in the context of the proceedings conducted under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area in Case AT.39816 — Upstream gas supplies in Central and Eastern Europe.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision which manifestly infringes Article 102 TFEU on account of an incorrect interpretation and the assessment that an undertaking may effectively rely on ‘state coercion’ stemming from the domestic law of a third State, which is not a Member of the European Union or the EEA, exonerating that undertaking from its liability in respect of an anti-competitive practice.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes the applicant’s right to be informed and to be heard provided for in Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004, in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights inasmuch as it did not forward to the applicant the information concerning the fact that the Commission, as a basis for the rejection of PGNiG’s complaint concerning the issues in relation to the Yamal Gas Pipeline, also took into consideration the domestic law of the Russian Federation, and inasmuch as it failed to forward to the applicant all the essential documents in relation to that issue, which constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 and Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as it failed to make a careful examination of all the factual and legal circumstances put forward in PGNiG’s complaint and inasmuch as it put forward reasoning which does not enable the General Court to effectively review the Commission’s implementation of its discretionary powers, which constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the adoption by the Commission of a decision which manifestly infringes Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU inasmuch as the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment consisting (i) in holding that the decision of the President of the Energy Regulation Office of 19 May 2015 (bearing reference DRG-4720-2(28)/2014/2015/6154/KF) is an item of evidence permitting the inference that the ground of complaint relating to the conclusion of a contract for the operation of the Yamal Gas Pipeline may be regarded as uncorroborated, (ii) in making an incorrect assessment of the nature of the restrictions on the supply of gas by Gazprom during the 2014/2015 winter season.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-401/19)

(2019/C 288/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 673

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1498/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-402/19)

(2019/C 288/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Cocilovo v Parliament

(Case T-406/19)

(2019/C 288/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Cocilovo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Speroni v Parliament

(Case T-407/19)

(2019/C 288/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Enrico Speroni (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Mezzaroma v Parliament

(Case T-408/19)

(2019/C 288/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mezzaroma (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Meo v Parliament

(Case T-409/19)

(2019/C 288/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maria Di Meo (Cellole, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Lello Finuoli v Parliament

(Case T-410/19)

(2019/C 288/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

Action brought on 7 July 2019 — CupoNation v EUIPO (Cyber Monday)

(Case T-494/19)

(2019/C 288/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CupoNation GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Cyber Monday in coral red and black — Application No 17 020 851

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 1798/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 8 July 2019 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-495/19)

(2019/C 288/79)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: C. Canțăr, E. Gane and R. Hațieganu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721 of 30 April 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 as regards the EU competences established by the Treaties — Romania submits that there is no legal basis in the Treaties enabling the Commission to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union as intended by the organisers of the proposed ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’. That proposal is manifestly outside that EU institution’s sphere of competence to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties and does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Romania submits that the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot be limited to informing the organisers regarding the elements laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, namely the reasons for refusing to register the proposed initiative and of all possible remedies available to them. — In that context, Romania submits that the statement of reasons for Decision (EU) 2019/721 is manifestly inadequate. A manifestly inadequate statement of reasons may prevent the persons concerned from ascertaining the reasons for the registration of the proposed initiative and responding accordingly and may also prevent the General Court of the European Union from exercising its power of review as to the legality of the decision.

Action brought on 10 July 2019 — Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)

(Case T-500/19)

(2019/C 288/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Coravin, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cora (Marne-la-Vallée, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CORAVIN– EU trade mark No 11 363 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2019 in Case R 2385/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	by way of correction, dismiss in its entirety the action for a declaration of invalidity brought by the company Cora on 25 November 2014;

—	consequently, maintain the mark CORAVIN No 11 363 496 in its entirety as regards the description of the goods covered in Class 21, namely ‘Wine pourers; wine access devices; wine preservation systems; household or kitchen utensils and containers, all for use with wine’;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Global Brand Holdings v EUIPO (XOXO)

(Case T-503/19)

(2019/C 288/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Brand Holdings LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. de Marion de Glatigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark XOXO — Application for registration No 17 086 951

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 1413/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

—	Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 15 July 2019 — Workspace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis (UMA WORKSPACE)

(Case T-506/19)

(2019/C 288/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Workspace Group plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopolis Oyj (Oulu, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark UMA WORKSPACE — Application for registration No 16 443 111

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 in Case R 1910/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	uphold the opposition decision;

—	refuse the contested application;

—	order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

—	Infringement of Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

—	Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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