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

(2020/C 137/01)

Last publication

OJ C 129, 20.4.2020

Past publications

OJ C 114, 6.4.2020

OJ C 103, 30.3.2020

OJ C 95, 23.3.2020

OJ C 87, 16.3.2020

OJ C 77, 9.3.2020

OJ C 68, 2.3.2020

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-156/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments - Restrictions - Taxation of dividends received by undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Refund of tax withheld on dividends - Conditions - Objective differentiation criteria - Criteria which are by nature or in fact favourable to resident taxpayers)

(2020/C 137/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Köln-Aktienfonds Deka

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Interveners: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a non-resident investment fund cannot be granted, on the ground that it has not provided proof that its shareholders or participants meet the conditions laid down by that legislation, a refund of dividend tax withheld on dividends that it has received from corporate bodies established in that Member State, provided that those conditions do not de facto disadvantage non-resident investment funds and provided that the tax authorities require proof of compliance with those conditions to be provided also by resident investment funds, which it is for the referring court to verify;

2.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a non-resident investment fund cannot be granted a refund of dividend tax which it has had to pay in that Member State, on the ground that it has not met the legal conditions for that refund, namely that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis within eight months of the end of its financial year, where, in its Member State of establishment, the proceeds of its investments which have not been distributed are deemed to have been distributed or are taken into account in the tax which that Member State levies on shareholders or participants as though that profit had been distributed and where, having regard to the objective underlying those conditions, such a fund is in a situation that is comparable to that of a resident fund which benefits from the refund of that tax, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 February 2020 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-515/17 P) and Republic of Poland v Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-561/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 137/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

(Case C-515/17 P)

Appellant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

(Case C-561/17 P)

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Lutostańska and A. Siwek-Slusarek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny) and Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents) and Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and S. Patyra, radcowie prawni)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2017, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (T-137/16, not published, EU:T:2017:407);

2.	Refers Case T-137/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3.	Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-75/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax on the turnover of telecommunications operators - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Turnover taxes - Meaning)

(2020/C 137/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned.

2.

Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the introduction of a tax which is based on the overall turnover of the taxable person and which is levied periodically, and not at each stage of the production and distribution process, there being no right to deduct tax paid at an earlier stage of that process.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 January 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-122/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Commercial transactions where the debtor is a public authority - Obligation of Member States to ensure that the period for payment imposed on public authorities does not exceed 30 or 60 days - Obligation to achieve a specified result)

(2020/C 137/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino and F. De Luca, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by not ensuring that its public authorities effectively comply with the periods for payment prescribed in Article 4(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2.	Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg — Germany) — Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

(Case C-298/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfer of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Operation of bus routes - Re-employment of the staff - Operating resources not taken over - Grounds)

(2020/C 137/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle

Defendants: Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the takeover by an economic entity of an activity the pursuit of which requires substantial operating resources, under a procedure for the award of a public contract, the fact that that entity does not take over those resources, which are the property of the economic entity previously engaged in that activity, on account of legal, environmental and technical constraints imposed by the contracting authority, cannot necessarily preclude the classification of that takeover of activity as a transfer of an undertaking, since other factual circumstances, such as the taking-over of the majority of the employees and the pursuit, without interruption, of that activity, make it possible to establish that the identity of the economic entity concerned has been retained, this being a matter for the referring court to assess.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Generics (UK) Ltd and Others v Competition and Markets Authority

(Case C-307/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Pharmaceutical products - Barriers to the entry on the market of generic medicines arising from settlement agreements (relating to disputes concerning process patents) concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic products - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Restriction by effect - Assessment of effects - Article 102 TFEU - Relevant market - Inclusion of generic medicines in the relevant market - Abuse of dominant position - Characterisation - Justification)

(2020/C 137/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Competition Appeal Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Generics (UK) Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC, Actavis UK Ltd, Merck KGaA

Defendant: Competition and Markets Authority

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of a manufacturing process patent for an active ingredient that is in the public domain, on the one hand, and the manufacturers of generic medicines who are preparing to enter the market of the medicine containing that active ingredient, on the other, who are in dispute as to whether that patent is valid or whether the generic medicines concerned infringe that patent, are potential competitors, where it is established that the manufacturer of generic medicines has in fact a firm intention and an inherent ability to enter the market, and that its market entry does not meet barriers that are insurmountable, which it is for the referring court to assess;

2.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a settlement agreement with respect to pending court proceedings between a manufacturer of originator medicines and a manufacturer of generic medicines, who are potential competitors, concerning whether a process patent (for the manufacture of an active ingredient of an originator medicine that is in the public domain) held by the manufacturer of originator medicines is valid and whether a generic version of that medicine infringes the patent, whereby that manufacturer of generic medicines undertakes not to enter the market of the medicine containing that active ingredient and not to pursue its action for the revocation of that patent for the duration of that agreement, in return for transfers of value in its favour by the manufacturer of originator medicines, constitutes an agreement which has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition: — if it is clear from all the information available that the net gain from the transfers of value by the manufacturer of originator medicines in favour of the manufacturer of generic medicines can have no explanation other than the commercial interest of the parties to the agreement not to engage in competition on the merits; — unless the settlement agreement concerned is accompanied by proven pro-competitive effects capable of giving rise to a reasonable doubt that it causes a sufficient degree of harm to competition;

3.

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that if a settlement agreement, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is to be demonstrated to have appreciable potential or real effects on competition, and, therefore, is to be characterised as a ‘restriction by effect’, that does not presuppose a finding that, in the absence of that agreement, either the manufacturer of generic medicines who is a party to that agreement would probably have been successful in the proceedings relating to the process patent at issue, or the parties to that agreement would probably have concluded a less restrictive settlement agreement;

4.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where a manufacturer of originator medicines containing an active ingredient which is in the public domain, but the process of manufacturing which is covered by a process patent, the validity of which is disputed, impedes, on the basis of that process patent, the market entry of generic versions of that medicine, there must be taken into consideration, for the purposes of definition of the product market concerned, not only the originator version of that medicine but also its generic versions, even if the latter would not be able to enter the market legally before the expiry of that process patent, if the manufacturers concerned of generic medicines are in a position to present themselves within a short period on the market concerned with sufficient strength to constitute a serious counterbalance to the manufacturer of originator medicines already on that market, which it is for the referring court to determine;

5.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the strategy of a dominant undertaking, the holder of a process patent for the production of an active ingredient that is in the public domain, which leads it to conclude, either as a precautionary measure or following the bringing of court proceedings challenging the validity of that patent, a set of settlement agreements which have, at the least, the effect of keeping temporarily outside the market potential competitors who manufacture generic medicines using that active ingredient, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, provided that that strategy has the capacity to restrict competition and, in particular, to have exclusionary effects, going beyond the specific anticompetitive effects of each of the settlement agreements that are part of that strategy, which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-323/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Turnover tax in the store retail trade sector - Progressive tax having a greater impact on undertakings owned by natural or legal persons of other Member States than on national undertakings - Progressive tax bands applicable to all taxable persons - Neutrality of the amount of turnover as a criterion of differentiation - Ability to pay of taxable persons - State aid)

(2020/C 137/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tesco-Global Áruházak Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that establishes a steeply progressive tax on turnover, the actual burden of which is mainly borne by undertakings controlled directly or indirectly by nationals of other Member States or by companies that have their registered office in another Member State, due to the fact that those undertakings achieve the highest turnover in the market concerned

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v J. and Others

(Case C-341/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen Borders Code - Control at the external borders - Third-country nationals - Article 11(1) - Affixing of stamps on travel documents - Exit stamp - Determination of the time of exit from the Schengen area - Signing-on of seamen with ships that are in long-term mooring in a sea port)

(2020/C 137/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: J. and Others

Interveners: C. and H. and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as meaning that, when a seaman who is a third-country national signs on with a ship in long-term mooring in a sea port of a State forming part of the Schengen area, for the purpose of working on board, before leaving that port on that ship, an exit stamp must, where provided for by that code, be affixed to that seaman’s travel documents not at the time of his signing on, but when the master of that ship notifies the competent national authorities of the ship’s imminent departure.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Ltd v SkyKick UK Ltd, SkyKick Inc.

(Case C-371/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 7 and 51 - First Directive 89/104/EEC - Articles 3 and 13 - Identification of the goods or services covered by the registration - Failure to comply with the requirements of clarity and precision - Bad faith of the applicant - No intention to use the trade mark for the goods or services covered by the registration - Total or partial invalidity of the trade mark - National legislation requiring the applicant to state that he or she intends to use the trade mark applied for)

(2020/C 137/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Ltd

Defendants: SkyKick UK Ltd, SkyKick Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 7 and 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006, and Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark or a national trade mark cannot be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that terms used to designate the goods and services in respect of which that trade mark was registered lack clarity and precision.

2.

Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Regulation No 1891/2006, and Article 3(2)(d) of First Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark application made without any intention to use the trade mark in relation to the goods and services covered by the registration constitutes bad faith, within the meaning of those provisions, if the applicant for registration of that mark had the intention either of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or of obtaining, without even targeting a specific third party, an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trade mark. When the absence of the intention to use the trade mark in accordance with the essential functions of a trade mark concerns only certain goods or services referred to in the application for registration, that application constitutes bad faith only in so far as it relates to those goods or services.

3.

First Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law under which an applicant for registration of a trade mark must state that the trade mark is being used in relation to the goods and services in relation to which it is sought to register the trade mark, or that he or she has a bona fide intention that it should be so used, in so far as the infringement of such an obligation does not constitute, in itself, a ground for invalidity of a trade mark already registered.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-384/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 25(1) and (2) - Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities of accountants)

(2020/C 137/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by C. Smits and D. Grisay, lawyers, M. Vossen, G. Lievens and F. Haemers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Declares that, by prohibiting the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with the activities of an insurance broker or agent, or of an estate agent, or with any banking or financial services activity, and by permitting the chambers of the Professional Institute of Approved Accountants and Tax Consultants to prohibit the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with any artisanal, commercial or agricultural activity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 49 TFEU;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Napoli — Italy) — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others

(Case C-394/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 82/891/EEC - Articles 12 and 19 - Division of limited liability companies - Protection of the interests of the creditors of the company being divided - Nullity of the division - Actio pauliana)

(2020/C 137/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

Respondents: Maria Grazia Cicenia, Mario Di Pierro, Salvatore de Vito, Antonio Raffaele

intervener: Costruzioni Ing. G. Iandolo Srl

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 12 of Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 82/891, must be interpreted as not precluding the creditors of the company being divided whose credit interests antedate that division, who did not take advantage of the creditor protection tools provided for in the national legislation implementing that article, from bringing an actio pauliana after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and to bring enforcement or protective action in relation to the assets transferred to the newly formed company.

2.

Article 19 of Directive 82/891, as amended by Directive 2007/63, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 82/891, which lays down nullity rules for divisions, must be interpreted as not precluding the creditors of the company being divided from bringing, after the division has been implemented, an actio pauliana which does not affect the validity of that division but merely allows for that division to be rendered unenforceable against those creditors.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-395/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement of supplies, works or services - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 18(2) - Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Ground for exclusion of a subcontractor mentioned in the economic operator’s tender - Subcontractor’s failure to comply with environmental, social and labour law obligations - National legislation providing for automatic exclusion of the economic operator for such a failure)

(2020/C 137/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

Defendant: Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Intervener: E-VIA SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(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 does not preclude national legislation under which the contracting authority has the option, or even the obligation, to exclude the economic operator who submitted the tender from participation in the contract award procedure where the ground for exclusion referred to in that provision is established in respect of one of the subcontractors mentioned in that operator’s tender. However, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of that directive, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation providing for the automatic nature of such exclusion.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AURES Holdings a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-405/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than its registered seat - Transfer of tax residency to that other Member State - National legislation not allowing a tax loss incurred in the Member State of incorporation before the transfer of its seat to be claimed)

(2020/C 137/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AURES Holdings a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a company incorporated under the law of a Member State, which transfers its place of effective management to another Member State without that transfer affecting its status as a company incorporated under the law of the first Member State, may rely on that article for the purposes of contesting a refusal in the second Member State to defer losses prior to that transfer;

2.

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the possibility for a company, which has transferred its place of effective management and, as a result, its tax residency to that Member State, from claiming a tax loss incurred, prior to that transfer, in another Member State, in which it has retained its registered seat.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 February 2020 — European External Action Service v Ruben Alba Aguilera and Others

(Case C-427/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials and members of staff - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Remuneration - Staff Regulations - Article 110 - EU staff posted to a third country - Annex X - Third subparagraph of Article 1 and Article 10 - Allowance for living conditions - Annual revision and adjustment - Reduction for staff posted to Ethiopia - Requirement to adopt general implementing provisions beforehand - Scope)

(2020/C 137/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, abogados, F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ruben Alba Aguilera, Simone Barenghi, Massimo Bonannini, Antonio Capone, Stéphanie Carette, Alejo Carrasco Garcia, Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Carl Daspect, Nathalie Devos, Jean-Baptiste Fauvel, Paula Cristina Fernandes, Stephan Fox, Birgitte Hagelund, Chantal Hebberecht, Karin Kaup-Laponin, Terhi Lehtinen, Sandrine Marot, David Mogollon, Clara Molera Gui, Daniele Morbin, Charlotte Onraet, Augusto Piccagli, Gary Quince, Pierre-Luc Vanhaeverbeke, Tamara Vleminckx, Birgit Vleugels, Robert Wade, Luca Zampetti (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls paragraphs 1 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 April 2018, Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS (T-119/17, EU:T:2018:183).

2.	Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union.

3.	Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2020 — Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-457/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 259 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Determination of the common border between two Member States - Border dispute between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia - Arbitration agreement - Arbitration proceedings - Notification by the Republic of Croatia of its decision to terminate the agreement because of an irregularity alleged by it to have been committed by a member of the arbitral tribunal - Arbitration award made by the arbitral tribunal - Alleged failure by the Republic of Croatia to observe the arbitration agreement and the border established by the arbitration award - Principle of sincere cooperation - Request that a document be removed from the case file - Protection of legal advice)

(2020/C 137/16)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: M. Menard, acting as Agent, and J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

Defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by: G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent, and J. Stratford QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Orders that the internal working document of the European Commission relating to the opinion of its Legal Service, which appears at pages 38 to 45 of Annex C.2 to the Republic of Slovenia’s response to the objection of inadmissibility, be removed from the file for Case C-457/18;

2.	Declares that the Court of Justice of the European Union lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Republic of Slovenia’s action, brought on the basis of Article 259 TFEU, in Case C-457/18;

3.	Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Hungary) — Google Ireland Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatósága

(Case C-482/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax provisions - Tax on advertising activities based on turnover - Obligations relating to registration with a tax authority - Principle of non-discrimination - Fines - Principle of proportionality)

(2020/C 137/17)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Hungary

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Google Ireland Limited

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which imposes an obligation to submit a tax declaration on suppliers of advertising services established in another Member State for the purposes of their liability to a tax on advertising, whereas suppliers of such services established in the Member State where the tax is levied are exempt from that obligation on the ground that they are subject to obligations to submit a tax declaration or to register on the basis of liability to all other taxes applicable in that Member State;

2.

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which fines suppliers of services established in another Member State for non-compliance with the obligation to submit a tax declaration for the purposes of their liability to a tax on advertising in a series of fines issued within several days, the amount of which, from the second day, is tripled in relation to the amount of the previous fine if it is still found that that obligation has not been complied with, leading to a total amount of several million euros, without the competent authority giving those suppliers of services the time necessary to comply with their obligations or the opportunity to submit their observations, or having itself examined the seriousness of the infringement, before adopting the final decision fixing the total amount of those fines, whereas the amount of the fine which suppliers of services established in the Member State where the tax is levied who fail to comply with a similar obligation to submit a tax declaration or to register contrary to the general provisions of national tax legislation is significantly less and is not increased, in the event of continued failure to comply with such an obligation, in the same proportions, nor necessarily within such a short period of time.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo (Italy) — Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo

(Case C-513/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 7(2) and (3) - Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ - National legislation levying a duty on commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers but not for the occasional carriage of passengers - Principle of equal treatment)

(2020/C 137/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a private undertaking engaged in the activity of the carriage of passengers, by means of services of hiring a bus or a coach with a driver, falls within its scope, provided that the vehicles hired out by that undertaking are in category M2 or M3, within the meaning of Directive 70/156/EEC, and, second, that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a reduced rate of excise duty for commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers, without, however, providing for such a rate for that used for the occasional carriage of passengers, provided that that legislation observes the principle of equal treatment, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-524/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Information and consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU - Nutritional and health claims made on foods - Article 10(3) - Reference to general, non-specific benefits - Concept of ‘accompanying’ a specific health claim - Obligation to produce scientific evidence - Scope)

(2020/C 137/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of 15 January 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement which it lays down that any reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food must be accompanied by a specific health claim included in the lists provided for in Articles 13 or 14 of that regulation, is not satisfied where the packaging of a food supplement contains a reference to general, non-specific health benefits of a nutrient or food on the front of the packaging, whereas the specific health claim intended to accompany it appears only on the back of that packaging and there is no clear reference, such as an asterisk, between the two;

2.

Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006 as amended by Regulation No 107/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that references to general, non-specific benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being must be justified by scientific evidence within the meaning of Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1) of that regulation. To that end, it suffices for such references to be accompanied by specific health claims included in the lists provided for in Article 13 or Article 14 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 — České dráhy a.s. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-538/18 P and C-539/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20(4) - Inspection decisions - Duty to state reasons - Reasonable grounds for finding an infringement of competition rules - Evidence lawfully gathered - Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence obtained from a previous inspection)

(2020/C 137/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář, advokát, J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	dismisses the appeals;

2.	České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK

(Case C-679/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Article 8 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness - National rules - Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer - Article 23 - Penalties - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature - National court - Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)

(2020/C 137/21)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OPR-Finance s. r. o.

Defendant: GK

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a national court to examine, of its own motion, whether there has been a failure to comply with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for in Article 8 of that directive, and to draw the consequences arising under national law of a failure to comply with that obligation, on condition that they satisfy the requirements of Article 23. Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48 must also be interpreted as precluding national rules under which a failure by the creditor to comply with its pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness is penalised by the nullity of the credit agreement, linked with an obligation on the consumer to return the principal sum to the creditor at a time appropriate to the consumer’s financial capacity, solely on condition that that consumer raises an objection of such nullity within a three-year limitation period.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against X

(Case C-717/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 2(2) - Execution of a European arrest warrant - Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act - Conditions - Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years - Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant - Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of at least three years)

(2020/C 137/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ascertain whether the offence for which a European arrest warrant has been issued is punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years, as it is defined in the law of the issuing Member State, the executing judicial authority must take into account the law of the issuing Member State in the version applicable to the facts giving rise to the case in which the European arrest warrant was issued.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Anton van Zantbeek VOF v Ministerraad

(Case C-725/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Freedom to provide services - Tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed in a Member State - Difference in treatment to the detriment of recipients of services using non-resident professional intermediaries - Restriction - Justification)

(2020/C 137/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed on the order of a resident of that Member State by a non-resident professional intermediary, resulting in a restriction on the freedom to provide services provided by such professional intermediaries, in so far as that legislation offers such an issuer of an order and such professional intermediaries options, both as regards the declaration obligations connected with that tax and its payment, which limit that restriction to that which is necessary to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Germany) — TK (C-773/18), UL (C-774/18), VM (C-775/18) v Land Sachsen-Anhalt

(Joined Cases C-773/18 to C-775/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2 and 6 - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Remuneration of officials - Discriminatory system of remuneration - Back-pay calculated on the basis of an earlier discriminatory grading - New discrimination - Article 9 - Compensation as a result of discriminatory legislation - Limitation period for the bringing of a claim for compensation - Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness)

(2020/C 137/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Halle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TK (C-773/18), UL (C-774/18), VM (C-775/18)

Defendant: Land Sachsen-Anhalt

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Articles 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a measure which awards officials and judges, in order to ensure that they receive adequate remuneration, back-pay based on a percentage of the basic salary which they previously received under, inter alia, a basic pay scale which was determined, for each grade, on recruitment, on the basis of their age, provided that it meets the need to ensure the protection of acquired rights in a situation particularly marked both by the high number of officials and judges concerned and by the lack of a valid system of reference and does not lead to a perpetuation in time of a difference in treatment on grounds of age;

2.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting the starting point of a limitation period of two months for the bringing of a claim for compensation for the harm resulting from a measure constituting discrimination on grounds of age at the date of the delivery of a judgment of the Court finding that a similar measure is discriminatory, where there is a risk that the persons concerned may not be in a position to become aware, within that time limit, of the existence or extent of the discrimination of which they were the victims. That may be the case in particular where, in that Member State, there is controversy surrounding the possibility of transposing to the measure concerned the guidance provided by that judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — GAEC Jeanningros v Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-785/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Protected designation of origin ‘Comté’ - Minor amendment to a product specification - Action before national courts contesting an application for an amendment - Case-law of the national courts according to which the action becomes devoid of purpose when the European Commission has approved the amendment - Effective judicial protection - Obligation to rule on the action)

(2020/C 137/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GAEC Jeanningros

Defendants: Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO), Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

intervening party: Comité interprofessionnel de gestion du Comté

Operative part of the judgment

Article 53(2) of 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, Article 6 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules, and Article 10 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the European Commission has granted an application made by the authorities of a Member State seeking a minor amendment to a product specification for a protected designation of origin, the national courts hearing an action concerning the lawfulness of the decision made by those authorities on that application with a view to submitting it to the Commission, in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012, cannot, on that ground alone, decide that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the dispute pending before them.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 22.5.2019.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Italy) — Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd, v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

(Case C-788/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Games of chance - Taxation - Principle of non-discrimination - Single tax on betting)

(2020/C 137/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C., Stanleybet Malta Ltd

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna — SOT Parma

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State that makes data transmission centres (DTCs) established in that Member State liable to a tax on betting jointly and severally with betting operators, their clients, which are established in another Member State, irrespective of where those operators are established and the absence of a licence to organise betting.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — AAS ‘Balta’ v UAB ‘Grifs AG’

(Case C-803/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 15, point 5 and Article 16, point 5 - Insurance of ‘large risks’ - Jurisdiction clause agreed upon by the policyholder and the insurer - Whether that clause may be relied on against the insured person)

(2020/C 137/27)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AAS ‘Balta’

Defendant: UAB ‘Grifs AG’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15, point 5, and Article 16, point 5, of Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction clause in an insurance contract covering a ‘large risk’, within the meaning of the latter provision, concluded by the policyholder and the insurer, may not be relied on against the party insured under that contract, who is not an insurance professional, who has not consented to that clause and who is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the policyholder and the insurer are domiciled.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real v RH

(Case C-836/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 20 TFEU - European Union citizens - Union citizen who has never exercised the freedom of movement - Application for a temporary residence permit for the spouse, who is a third-country national - Rejection - Obligation to support the spouse - Union citizen having insufficient resources - Obligation of the spouses to live together - National legislation and practice - Effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on Union citizens - Deprived)

(2020/C 137/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Defendant: RH

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from rejecting an application for family reunification submitted by the spouse, who is a third-country national, of a Union citizen who holds the nationality of that Member State and who has never exercised the freedom of movement, on the sole ground that that Union citizen does not have, for him or herself and his or her spouse, sufficient resources not to become a burden on the national social assistance system, without it having been examined whether there is a relationship of dependency between that Union citizen and his or her spouse of such a kind that, if the latter were refused a derived right of residence, that Union citizen would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and would thus be deprived of the effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by his or her status;

2.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a relationship of dependency, such as to justify the grant of a derived right of residence under that article, does not exist on the sole ground that the national of a Member State, who is of full age and has never exercised the freedom of movement, and his or her spouse, who is of full age and a third-country national, are required to live together, by virtue of the obligations arising out of the marriage under the law of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — Corporis sp. z o.o. v Gefion Insurance A/S

(Case C-25/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2009/138/EC - Representation of a non-life insurance undertaking - Representative permanently resident in national territory - Service of documents - Receipt of the document initiating proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Non-applicability)

(2020/C 137/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporis sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Article 152(1) 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), read in conjunction with Article 151 of that directive and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the appointment by a non-life insurance undertaking of a representative in the host Member State also includes the authorisation for that representative to receive a document initiating court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

(Case C-79/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33m(1) - Distortion of the evidence)

(2020/C 137/30)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (initially represented by R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently by K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by J. Jokubauskaitė and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-100/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunications sector - Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for the implementation of systems providing mobile satellite services - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Article 4(1)(c), Article 7(1), and Article 8(1) - Complementary ground components - Authorisations issued by Member States - Requirement for operators to provide service coverage for a certain percentage of the population and the territory - Non-compliance - Effect)

(2020/C 137/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd and Viasat Inc.

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Other parties to the proceedings: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd c.o. and Eutelsat SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 thereof has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-248/19) (1)

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 - Annex I, points A, B and D - No collecting systems for urban waste water in certain agglomerations - No secondary or equivalent treatment of urban waste water - Construction and operation of treatment plants - Control of discharges from such plants)

(2020/C 137/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Triantafyllou and E. Manhaeve, agents)

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by E. Zachariadou and M. Chatzigeorgiou, agents)

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Declares that the Republic of Cyprus, by failing: — to provide 31 agglomerations (Aradippou, Ypsonas, Dali, Voroklini, Deryneia, Sotira, Xylophagou, Pervolia, Kolossi, Poli Chrysochous, Leivadia, Dromolaxia, Pera Chorio-Nisou, Liopetri, Avgorou, Paliometocho, Kiti, Frenaros, Ormideia, Kokkinotrimithia, Trachoni, Episkopi, Xylotympou, Pano Polemidia, Pyla, Lympia, Parekklisia, Kakopetria, Achna, Meneou and Pyrgos) with a collecting system for urban waste water, and — to ensure, for the same agglomerations, that the urban waste water entering the collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before discharge, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 10 and 15 of and Annex I, points A, B and D, to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008.

2.	Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H. Solak v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

(Case C-258/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 59 of the Additional Protocol - Decision No 3/80 - Social security for Turkish migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Article 6 - Supplementary benefits - Suspension - Renunciation of the nationality of the host Member State - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Residence requirement)

(2020/C 137/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. Solak

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1), first paragraph, of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, read together with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the payment of a benefit intended to supplement an invalidity pension in order to ensure a minimum income, granted in accordance with that legislation, is suspended with regard to a Turkish national, duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State who, after renouncing the citizenship of a Member State which he had acquired during his residence in that State, has returned to his country of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2019 — Fruits de Poment, SCCL v European Commission

(Case C-183/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Markets for soft fruits - Disruption during the 2014 season - Temporary exceptional support measures for producers - Action to establish non-contractual liability)

(2020/C 137/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Fruits de Poment, SCCL (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, W. Farrell and A. Sauka, Agents)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed.

2.	Fruits de Poment SCCL is ordered to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29. 4. 2019.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Armostav Místek s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-520/19) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - 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)

(2020/C 137/35)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Armostav Místek s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Ostrava Regional Court Czech Republic), by decision of 18 June 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 328 of 30.9.2019.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-679/19) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Scope - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Transport of large amounts of cash entering or leaving the territory of a Member State - Obligation to declare - Sanctions - Fine and confiscation for the benefit of the State of an undeclared sum in excess of 10 000 euros - Proportionality)

(2020/C 137/36)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Operative part of the order

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the rules of a Member State which, for the purpose of sanctioning the failure of the obligation to declare large sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of that State provides, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, for the confiscation for the benefit of the State an undeclared sum in excess of 10 000 euros.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 17.12.2019

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘ONDO’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-943/19)

(2020/C 137/37)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘ONDO’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

1.	Is the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, (1) an autonomous concept of EU law?

2.

Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — AS ‘4finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-944/19)

(2020/C 137/38)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: AS ‘4finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

1.	Is the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, defined in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, (1) an autonomous concept of EU law?

2.

Are the costs of extending the credit included in the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102 EEC, in circumstances such as those of the present case, if the clauses on extending the credit form part of the terms and conditions of the credit agreement agreed by the borrower and the lender?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 27 December 2019 — SIA ‘OC Finance’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-945/19)

(2020/C 137/39)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: SIA ‘OC Finance’

Respondent in the appeal proceedings: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-944/19.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 January 2020 — B

(Case C-1/20)

(2020/C 137/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: B

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Wien

Question referred

Is Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the services of a lawyer provided in his or her capacity as a court-appointed guardian — in so far as those services are not services typically provided by a lawyer — are exempt from VAT?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Vodafone GmbH

(Case C-5/20)

(2020/C 137/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: Vodafone GmbH

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 3(1) of the TSM Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the right of end-users to use terminal equipment of their choice via their internet access service also includes the right, where the internet access service is provided via terminal equipment (e.g., smartphone, tablet) connected directly to the public telecommunications network interface, to also use that internet access service with other terminal equipment (e.g., other tablet, smartphone) (tethering)?

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 3(1) and (2) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that there will be an impermissible limitation of the end-user’s choice of terminal equipment where tethering is neither contractually prohibited nor technically restricted, but is, on the basis of an agreement on data volumes used via tethering and unlike data volumes used without tethering, not covered by a zero-cost tariff but offset against a basic volume and calculated separately in the event that that basic volume is exceeded?’

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2020 — VS v Hauptzollamt Münster

(Case C-7/20)

(2020/C 137/42)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VS

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as meaning that Article 87(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 establishing the EU Customs Code (2) can be applied mutatis mutandis to the recovery of VAT (import turnover tax)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2020 — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136 v Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

(Case C-9/20)

(2020/C 137/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Kollaustraße 136

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Oberalster

Questions referred

1.

Does Article 167 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valued added tax (1) preclude a provision of national law according to which the right of input tax deduction already arises at the time the transaction is performed, even if, under national law, the tax claim against the supplier or service provider arises only when the remuneration is received and the remuneration has not yet been paid?

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: Does Article 167 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valued added tax preclude a provision of national law according to which the right of input tax deduction cannot be asserted for the tax period in which the remuneration has been paid if the tax claim against the supplier or service provider arises only when the remuneration is received, the service has already been provided in an earlier tax period and, under national law, due to the matter being time-barred, it is no longer possible to assert the input tax claim for that earlier tax period?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 13 January 2020 — DB Netz AG v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-12/20)

(2020/C 137/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB Netz AG

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1.

Is Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, (1) in particular with regard to the tasks assigned to the management board of a freight corridor in Article 13(1), Article 14(9) and Article 18(c) of that Regulation, to be interpreted as meaning that the management board for a freight corridor is authorised to define the procedure for submitting applications for allocation of infrastructure capacity to the one-stop shop referred to in Article 13(1) of the Regulation itself, for example by requiring, as in the present circumstances, the exclusive use of an electronic booking tool, or is that procedure subject to the general provisions of Article 27(1) and (2) read in conjunction with point 3(a) of Annex IV to Directive 2012/34/EU, (2) which means that it may be regulated solely by the infrastructure managers involved in a freight corridor in their respective network statements?

2.

If the first question is to be answered to the effect that the procedure referred to in point 1 has to be regulated solely in the network statement of the infrastructure managers involved in a freight corridor, is the review of the network statement by a national regulatory body governed in this respect by Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 or likewise exclusively by the provisions of Directive 2012/34/EU and the national legislation adopted for its transposition? (a) If the review is governed by Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, is it compatible with the provisions of that article for a national regulatory body to object to a regulation in the network statement such as that referred to in point 1, without acting jointly and in a substantively uniform manner with the regulatory bodies of the other States involved in the freight corridor or at least consulting them beforehand in order to ensure a uniform approach? (b) In so far as the review is governed by the provisions of Directive 2012/34/EU and the national legislation adopted for its transposition, is it compatible with those provisions, in particular with the general duty of coordination laid down in the second sentence of Article 57(1) of that directive, for a national regulatory body to object to such a regulation, without acting jointly and in a substantively uniform manner with the regulatory bodies of the other States involved in the freight corridor or at least having consulted them beforehand in order to ensure a uniform approach?

3.

If the first question is to be answered to the effect that the procedure referred to in point 1 has to be regulated solely in the network statement of the infrastructure managers involved in a freight corridor, is the review of the network statement by a national regulatory body governed in this respect by Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 or likewise exclusively by the provisions of Directive 2012/34/EU and the national legislation adopted for its transposition?

4.

In so far as the national regulatory bodies, on the basis of the questions above, are authorised to review the procedure referred to in point 1, is Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 to be interpreted as meaning that the framework defined by the executive board under that provision is EU law which binds the national regulatory bodies and the national courts, has priority of application over national law and is subject to the ultimately binding interpretation of the Court of Justice?

5.

If the fourth question is to be answered in the affirmative, does the designation made under Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 by the executive boards of all the freight corridors under Article 8(2) of the respective framework, according to which the corridor capacity is to be published and allocated via an international application system, which shall as far as possible be harmonised with the other freight corridors, preclude a decision of a national regulatory body by which an infrastructure manager involved in a freight corridor is provided, for its network statement, with stipulations for structuring that application system which are not agreed with the national regulatory bodies of the other States involved in the freight corridors?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight (OJ 2010 L 276, p. 22).

(2)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Badajoz (Spain) lodged on 15 January 2020 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) v Caja Almendralejo Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

(Case C-15/20)

(2020/C 137/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables)

Defendant: Caja Almendralejo Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in referred in Case C-224/19. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 246, p. 4.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Badajoz (Spain) lodged on 15 January 2020 — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables) v Liberbank S.A.

(Case C-16/20)

(2020/C 137/46)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros de España (Adicae Consumidores Críticos y Responsables)

Defendant: Liberbank, S.A.

Questions referred

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in referred in Case C-224/19. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2019 C 246, p. 4.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 24 January 2020 — Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-34/20)

(2020/C 137/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1.

(a) In the case where a mobile communications tariff including a monthly data allowance and providing for reduced transmission speed once that data volume has been used can be extended by a free option which allows certain services provided by content partners of the telecommunications company to be used without offsetting the data volume used for those services against the monthly data allowance included in the mobile communications tariff, and the end-user agrees to limitation of the bandwidth to a maximum of 1,7 Mbit/s for video-streaming, irrespective of whether the video-streaming service is provided by content partners or other providers, is Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 (1) to be understood as meaning that agreements on the characteristics of internet access services within the meaning of Article 3(2) of that regulation must fulfil the requirements of Article 3(3) thereof? (b) If the answer to Question 1.(a) is in the affirmative: Is Article 3(3), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, bandwidth limitation qualifies as the slowing down of one category of service? (c) If the answer to Question 1.(b) is in the affirmative: Is the term ‘impending network congestion’ within the meaning of Article 3(3), third subparagraph, point c), of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that it covers only (impending) exceptional or temporary network congestion? (d) If the answer to Question 1.(b) is in the affirmative: Is Article 3(3), third subparagraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in these proceedings, the need for equal treatment of equivalent categories of traffic precludes bandwidth limitation that applies in the case of one optional add-on only, but not in the case of other mobile communication tariffs, and applies, moreover, to video-streaming alone? [Or. 3] (e) If the answer to Question 1.(b) is in the affirmative: Is Article 3(3), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in these proceedings, bandwidth limitation that depends on the addition of the optional add-on and that the end-user can, moreover, deactivate at any time for up to 24 hours fulfils the requirement that one category of service may be slowed down only for as long as is necessary to achieve the objectives of Article 3(3), third subparagraph, points (a) to (c), of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120?

2.

(a) If the answer to Question 1.(b) is in the negative: Is Article 3(3), second subparagraph, second sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in these proceedings, bandwidth limitation for video-streaming alone is based on objectively different technical quality of service requirements of specific categories of traffic? (b) If the answer to Question 2.(a) is in the affirmative: Is Article 3(3), second subparagraph, third sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that identification of the traffic generated from video-streaming from IP addresses, protocols, URLs and SNIs and using pattern matching, during which certain header information is compared with typical video-streaming values, constitutes monitoring of the specific content of the traffic?

3.

If the answer to Question 1.(a) is in the negative: Is Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 to be understood as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in these proceedings, bandwidth limitation for video-streaming alone restricts end-users’ rights within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Instrucción n.o 3 de San Bartolomé de Tirajana (Spain) lodged on 25 January 2020 — Ministerio Fiscal v VL

(Case C-36/20)

(2020/C 137/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Instrucción n.o 3 de San Bartolomé de Tirajana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerio Fiscal

Defendant: VL

Questions referred

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) provides for the situation where applications for international protection are made before other authorities that are not competent to register them under national law, in which event Member States are to ensure that the registration takes place no later than six working days after the application is made. Is the foregoing to be interpreted as meaning that examining magistrates who are competent to adjudicate on the detention or otherwise of foreign nationals under Spanish national law are to be regarded as one of those ‘other authorities’, which are not competent to register an application for international protection but before which applicants may nonetheless indicate their intention to make such an application?

2.

If an examining magistrate is deemed to be one of those authorities, is Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU to be interpreted as meaning that he or she must provide applicants with information on where and how to make an application for international protection, and, if such an application is made, transfer it to the body competent under national law to register and process it, as well as to the competent administrative body, so that the applicant can be granted the reception measures provided for in Article 17 of Directive 2013/33/EU? (2)

3.

Are Article 26 of Directive 2013/32/EU and Article 8 of Directive 2013/33/EU to be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national may not be held in detention unless the conditions laid down in Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU are met, on the ground that the applicant is protected by the principle of non-refoulement from the point at which he indicates his intention [to apply for international protection] before the examining magistrate?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60

(2)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2020 — ZP v Delegación del Gobierno en Melilla

(Case C-38/20)

(2020/C 137/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, Ceuta y Melilla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZP

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno en Melilla

Questions referred

1.

Are Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be construed as precluding national legislation such as that made up of Articles 18, 4 and 29 of Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, and Article 37 of Royal Decree 689/1978 of 10 February 1978 laying down the rules governing areas and facilities of national defence interest, which implements Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, in so far as it imposes serious restrictions on the exercise of the right to own property by foreign nationals, including the requirement to obtain military authorisation in order to exercise that right in full, failure to comply with which attracts the imposition of an administrative penalty from the application of which Spanish nationals are excluded in any circumstances, in the case where such restrictions are imposed on third-country nationals engaging in activities subject to limitations in conjunction with nationals of the European Union?

2.

If the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, are Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be construed as precluding national legislation such as that made up of Articles 18, 4 and 29 of Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, and Article 37 of Royal Decree 689/1978 of 10 February 1978 laying down the rules governing areas and facilities of national defence interest, which implements Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, in so far as it imposes serious restrictions on the exercise of the right to own property by foreign nationals, including the requirement to obtain military authorisation in order to exercise that right in full, failure to comply with which attracts the imposition of an administrative penalty from the application of which Spanish nationals are excluded in any circumstances, if such restrictions are justified on overriding reasons in the general interest relating to national defence, regard being had exclusively to the significance of the public interest in relation to national defence that lies in safeguarding enclaves of particular strategic importance?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik (Bulgaria), lodged on 29 January 2020 — SF v Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

(Case C-49/20)

(2020/C 137/50)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring Court

Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

Questions referred

First question:

Must Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, (1) read in conjunction with recital 6 and Articles 4 and 5 thereof, be interpreted as precluding a general national legislative provision such as that in question in the main proceedings, under which domestic payments of BGN 10 000 or more are only to be made by transfer or deposit into a payment account and which, in the case of cash payments, disregards the person or the reason for making a cash payment, but rather applies to all cash payments between natural and legal persons?

Second question:

For the purposes of achieving the objective of the directive, in the light of recital 59 thereof, is solely the amount of the payment relevant, without it being dependant on whether the transaction is for consideration or not.

Third question:

Which criteria determine whether the transactions are open to abuse or are high-risk?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 12 February 2020 — Anklagemyndigheden v VAS Shipping ApS

(Case C-71/20)

(2020/C 137/51)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

Defendant: VAS Shipping ApS

Question referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State which requires third-country crew members on a vessel flagged in a Member State and owned by a shipowner who is a national of another EU Member State to have a work permit, unless the vessel enters ports of the Member State on at most 25 occasions calculated continuously over the last year?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 February 2020 — ‘Lifosa’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20)

(2020/C 137/52)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant:‘Lifosa’ AB

Defendant and respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Are Articles 29(1) and 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 70(1) and 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction (customs) value must be adjusted to include all the costs actually incurred by the seller (producer) in transporting the goods to the place where they were brought into the customs territory of the European Union (Community) when, as in the present case, (1) under the delivery conditions (‘Incoterms 2000’ — DAF) the obligation to cover those costs was borne by the seller (producer) and (2) those costs of transport exceeded the price that was agreed upon and was actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer), but (3) the price actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer) corresponded to the real value of the goods, even if that price was insufficient to cover all the costs of transport incurred by the seller (producer)?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 13 February 2020 — K. M. v Director of Public Prosecutions

(Case C-77/20)

(2020/C 137/53)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K. M.

Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Question referred

In the context of the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and of the provisions of Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 (1), and in the context of a criminal prosecution taken to enforce the provisions thereof, is a provision of National law which provides on conviction on indictment, in addition to a fine, for the mandatory forfeiture of all fish and all fishing gear found on board the boat to which the offence relates, compatible with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 (2), and specifically Articles 89 and 90 thereof, and the principle of proportionality under the treaties of the European Union and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998, L 125, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 14 February 2020 — Criminal proceedings against M.B.

(Case C-78/20)

(2020/C 137/54)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

M.B.

Generálna prokuratúra Slovenskej republiky

Question referred

Must the requirements which an European arrest warrant must satisfy as a judicial decision under Articles 1(1) and 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (1) be applied also to supplementary information provided pursuant to Article 15(2) thereof, where, for the purposes of the decision of the executing judicial authority, it substantially supplements or changes the content of the arrest warrant originally issued?

---

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 February 2020 — Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

(Case C-86/20)

(2020/C 137/55)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Brně

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vinařství U Kapličky s.r.o..

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

Questions referred

1.

Does a V I 1 document issued under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 (1) of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector, and containing a certificate issued by an authorised body from a third country certifying that the product has been produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV or approved by the Community constitute a mere administrative condition for the entry of wine into the territory of the European Union?

2.

Does EU law preclude a national rule which allows a dealer of wine imported from Moldova to avoid liability for the administrative offence of marketing wine which has undergone oenological practices not allowed in the European Union, unless the national authorities refute the dealer's assumption that the wine was produced in accordance with oenological practices approved by the European Union, which the dealer made from the V I 1 document issued by the Moldovan authorities under Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2020 — mBank S.A. v PA

(Case C-98/20)

(2020/C 137/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodni soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendant: PA

Questions referred

1.

Does the term ‘consumer’s domicile’ within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, mean the consumer’s domicile as at the date on which the application was lodged or as at the date on which the relationship of obligation arose between the consumer and his contractual partner (i.e., for example, as at the date of the conclusion of a contract), that is, will an agreement be a consumer contract as provided for in Article 17(1)(c) of the Regulation cited even in the event that the consumer has, as at the date on which the application was lodged, his domicile in a Member State other than that in which the consumer’s contractual partner pursues commercial or professional activities?

2.

Can a consumer having his domicile in another Member State under Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), effective from 10 January 2015, be sued in a court of the place where the obligation concerned was or should have been fulfilled (regardless of Article 18(2) and Article 26(2) of the Regulation) due to the fact that the consumer’s contractual party does not pursue commercial or professional activities in the State in which the consumer’s domicile is located as at the date of lodgment of the application?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 29 February 2020 by Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-211/18, Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case C-115/20 P)

(2020/C 137/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, S. De Knop, B. Natens, advocaten, C. Muttin, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-211/18;

—	uphold the application at first instance and annul the European Commission Implementing Decision ‘C(2018) 252 final’ refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for the medicinal product for human use Fanaptum — iloperidone;

—	order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

In the alternative, the appellant requests that the Court:

—	quashes the judgment of the General Court in case T-211/18;

—	refers the case back to the General Court for judgment;

—	reserves the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable standard of judicial review, and distorted the evidence.

Second ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the Note for Guidance CHMP/ICH/2/04 on the Clinical Evaluation of QT/QTc 2 Interval Prolongation and Proarrhythmic Potential for Non Antiarrhythmic Drugs (‘QT Guidance’).

Third ground of appeal: The General Court did not assess the appellant’s second plea in law in its entirety.

Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court distorted the evidence and misapplied the principle of equal treatment.

Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 12 and 81(2) of Regulation No 726/2004.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Danemark) — BEI ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-682/16) (1)

(2020/C 137/58)

Language of the case: Danish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Sicilville Srl v Comune di Brescia, intervening party: Consorzio Stabile A.L.P.I. s.c.a.r.l.

(Case C-324/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/59)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — BP v Uniparts SARL

(Case C-668/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/60)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-676/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/61)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v RK

(Case C-85/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per L'Inclusione Sociale dell'Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino, interested party: La Scintilla Soc. Coop. Soc.

(Case C-109/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/63)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Ostuni, Consorzio per L'Inclusione Sociale dell'Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino, interested party: La Scintilla Soc. Coop. Soc.

(Case C-110/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/64)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Industria Italiana Autobus SpA v Comune di Palermo, interested party: Irisbus Italia SpA

(Case C-111/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/65)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház

(Case C-491/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/66)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza — Spain) — Ibercaja Banco, S.A. v SO, TP

(Case C-497/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 26 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — XW v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-541/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/68)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 15 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi — Spain) — Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi v Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga

(Case C-635/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

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

(Case C-648/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/70)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

Order of the President of the Court of 6 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Banco Santander, SA v VF, WD

(Case C-691/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2020 — IFSUA v Council

(Case T-251/18) (1)

(Fisheries - Conservation of marine biological resources - Regulation (EU) 2018/120 - Measures concerning the fishing for European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) - Action for annulment brought by an association - Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern of the members of the association - Admissibility - Competence of the European Union to regulate recreational fisheries - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Precautionary principle - Freedom of association and freedom to conduct a business)

(2020/C 137/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. Gui Mori and R. Agut Jubert, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta, F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (OJ 2018 L 27, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interim proceedings;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)

(Case T-688/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE - Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 137/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.

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 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

3.	Orders Brigade Electronics Group plc to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 21.1.2019.

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC)

(Case T-80/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark DECOPAC - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)

(2020/C 137/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dekoback GmbH (Helmstadt-Bargen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Moers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DecoPac, Inc. (Anoka, Minnesota, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1795/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Dekoback and DecoPac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Dekoback GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — FT v ESMA

(Case T-625/18) (1)

(Civil service - Withdrawal of debit note issued by ESMA - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 137/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: G. Filippa and F. Barzanti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of ESMA’s letter of 9 August 2018, which was notified to the applicant on 10 August 2018 and by which the ESMA requested reimbursement of EUR 12 000 in relation to costs in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 8 October 2015, FT v ESMA (F-39/14, EU:F:2015:117), and, secondly, of debit note No 4440180170, which was issued by ESMA on 10 August 2018, seeking the reimbursement of that sum.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2.	Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2020 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)

(Case T-180/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle - Earlier international design - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 137/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bibita Group SHPK (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 1070/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bibita Group and Benkomers.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Bibita Group SHPK.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Gerber v Parliament and Council

(Case T-326/19 R)

(Interim measures - EU customs territory - Regulation (EU) 2019/474 - Directive (EU) 2019/475 - Inclusion of the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 137/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tibor Gerber (Campione d’Italia, Italy) (represented by: N. Amadei, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Biz, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and E. Ambrosini, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation, first, of Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 38), and, secondly, of Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42).

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is refused.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T-368/19) (1)

(State aid - Tax advantages and public financing - Complaint - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission putting an end to the failure to act - Decision to close the formal investigation procedure - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 137/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission, following the complaint lodged on 15 March 2012, unlawfully failed, within a reasonable time, to close the formal investigation procedure by adopting a decision under Article 108(2) TFEU or Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.	The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission

(Case T-795/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 137/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7319 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract CARDS/2008/166-429 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission

(Case T-796/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 137/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 February 2020 — Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T-797/19 R)

(Interim measures - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Decision to withdraw authorisation as a credit institution - Lack of urgency)

(2020/C 137/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria), Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East BV’ (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Fischer, J. Willheim and M. Ketzer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, E. Yoo and V. Hümpfner, agents)

Re:

Suspension of the implementation of the decision of 14 November 2019, ref: ECB-SSM-2019-AT-8, WHD-2019-0009 by which the European Central Bank withdrew the authorisation of Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG as a credit institution from the date of notification of the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the application.

2.	Cancels the order of 20 November 2019, Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v BCE (T-797/19 R, not published, EU:T:2019:801).

3.	Reserves the costs.

Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 3 March 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament

(Case T-24/20 R)

(Interim measures - Institutional law - Members of the Parliament - Expiry of mandate - Parliamentary immunity - Application for interim measures - Partial inadmissibility - No prima facie case)

(2020/C 137/82)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by A. Van den Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by N. Lorenz and C. Burgos, agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, inter alia, suspension of enforcement of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020, declaring the seat of the applicant to be vacant as from 3 January 2020 and rejecting the application submitted on 20 December 2019 for urgent measures to protect his parliamentary immunity.

Operative part

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission

(Case T-94/20)

(2020/C 137/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Campine (Beerse, Belgium), Campine Recycling (Beerse) (represented by: C. Verdonck, B. Gielen and Q. Silvestre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

order the Commission to pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court Campine Judgment (1) over the period starting on the date of Campine’s provisional payment of the fine until 11 December 2019. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points — i.e. amounting to EUR 300 637,32, or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate;

—

order the Commission to pay default interest on the amount in (a), i.e., on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled. That default interest should be calculated at the rate corresponding to the applicable ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 percentage points (calculated on the compensation of EUR 300 637,32, that amounts to EUR 28,83 per day), or, alternatively, at a rate of interest that the Court deems appropriate. This default interest should be calculated over the period starting on the date of the Commission’s reimbursement of the principal amount on 11 December 2019, or alternatively starting on the date of the delivery of the General Court’s judgment in this case, or, as a further alternative, over the period starting on the date that the Court deems appropriate;

—

in subsidiary order, annul the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest to the applicants following the General Court’s judgment in case T-240/17, and order the Commission to pay damages pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, or alternatively to adopt appropriate measures in order to ensure full compliance with the General Court’s judgment of 7 November 2019 in light of the requirements of Article 266 § 1 TFEU;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay compensation under Article 266 § 2 TFEU and Article 340 § 2 TFEU. The applicants submit that following the General Court Campine Judgment the Commission was required, under Article 266 § 1 TFEU as interpreted by the case-law, in terms of measures for complying with that judgment, not only to repay the principal amount of the fine but also to pay default interest as compensation at a standard rate for the loss of use of that amount during the reference period (i.e., the period between the provisional payment by the applicants and the repayment by the Commission), and the Commission enjoyed no discretion in that regard. Given the retroactive effect of an annulment judgement, the Commission should pay compensation corresponding to the default interest to comply with the General Court’s judgment in the Campine case.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission should pay default interests on the compensation to be paid. The applicants put forward that the principle of restitutio in integrum requires that the Commission pay default interest on the compensation that corresponds to the default interest on the part of the fine that was annulled.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission letter of 13 January 2020, or alternatively the Commission e-mail of 10 December 2019, in which the Commission refused to pay default interest, are unlawful and should therefore be annulled. The applicants submit that these acts are unlawful because of the infringement of Articles 266§ 1 and 296§ 1 TFEU.

---

(1)  Judgment of 7 November 2019, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission, T-240/17 (ECLI:EU:T:2019:778).

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND)

(Case T-112/20)

(2020/C 137/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intis d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: T. Nagy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Televes, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark TELEVEND — European Union trade mark No 15 547 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1923/2019-5

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 60(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Action brought on 25 February 2020 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — Crafts Americana Group (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)

(Case T-124/20)

(2020/C 137/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) — European Union trade mark No 8 884 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 2672/2017-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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

—	Misapplication of the test of distinctiveness for three-dimensional and similar marks.

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2020 — Bernis and Others v ECB

(Case T-564/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/86)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

Order of the General Court of 13 February 2020 — Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO — Lacoste (LOVE PINK)

(Case T-582/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/87)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.