ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 182

European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 61
28 May 2018


Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 182/01

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

1


 

V   Announcements

 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

 

Court of Justice

2018/C 182/02

Case C-80/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

2

2018/C 182/03

Case C-81/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

3

2018/C 182/04

Case C-82/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

4

2018/C 182/05

Case C-83/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2018 — Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U. v Administración General del Estado

6

2018/C 182/06

Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET

7

2018/C 182/07

Case C-99/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

8

2018/C 182/08

Case C-130/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

8

2018/C 182/09

Case C-134/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

9

2018/C 182/10

Case C-143/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank

9

2018/C 182/11

Case C-160/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 February 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

10

2018/C 182/12

Case C-163/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA

11

2018/C 182/13

Case C-179/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

12

2018/C 182/14

Case C-180/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

12

2018/C 182/15

Case C-184/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

13

2018/C 182/16

Case C-185/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Oro Efectivo S.L. v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

13

2018/C 182/17

Case C-192/18: Action brought on 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

14

2018/C 182/18

Case C-201/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge

15

2018/C 182/19

Case C-206/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

16

2018/C 182/20

Case C-221/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Électricité de France (EDF) against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2018 in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission

17

2018/C 182/21

Case C-247/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, Italy v Commission

18

 

General Court

2018/C 182/22

Case T-271/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2018 — H v Council (Common foreign and security policy — National staff member seconded to EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Redeployment decision — Power of the Head of the EUPM to decide on the redeployment of a seconded national staff member — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Manifest error of assessment — Psychological harassment)

20

2018/C 182/23

Case T-274/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2018 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Commission’s powers of investigation — Professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients — Documents exchanged following a previous inspection — Commission’s refusal to suspend the infringement proceedings at issue — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

20

2018/C 182/24

Case T-732/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — Lack of urgency)

21

2018/C 182/25

Case T-766/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — Lack of urgency)

22

2018/C 182/26

Case T-361/17: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — Decision correcting a decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines — Period within which an action must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

22

2018/C 182/27

Case T-574/17: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — UD v Commission (Civil Service — Recipient of a survivor’s pension — Social security — Rejection of a request for prior authorisation with a view to obtaining reimbursement of certain medical expenses — New request — Purely confirmatory document — Time limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

23

2018/C 182/28

Case T-34/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)

23

2018/C 182/29

Case T-135/18: Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Szegedi v Parliament

24

2018/C 182/30

Case T-198/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others

26

2018/C 182/31

Case T-203/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — VQ v ECB

26

2018/C 182/32

Case T-219/18: Action brought on 30 March 2018 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group (Mopeds)

28

2018/C 182/33

Case T-228/18: Action brought on 5 April 2018 — Transtec v. Commission

29


EN

 


IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/1


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

(2018/C 182/01)

Last publication

OJ C 166, 14.5.2018

Past publications

OJ C 161, 7.5.2018

OJ C 152, 30.4.2018

OJ C 142, 23.4.2018

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018

OJ C 123, 9.4.2018

OJ C 112, 26.3.2018

These texts are available on:

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


V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/2


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

(Case C-80/18)

(2018/C 182/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA)

Respondents: Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

Questions referred

1.

Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

2.

In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

3.

Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

4.

Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

5.

Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

(2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/3


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-81/18)

(2018/C 182/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

Respondent: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

1)

Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the true purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of revenue in the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

2)

In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation preclude the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the preamble to the law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

3)

Does Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, in accordance with which the specific obligations placed on the nuclear power generating industry that have to be imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, must be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, preclude the taxes provided for in Law 15/2012 if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

4)

Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes, when the cost of waste management and storage is already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability, distorting the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

5)

Does Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which lays down ‘the polluter pays principle’, preclude a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other undertakings that carry on activities using nuclear material or sources are not taxed, despite their effect on the values of environmental protection?


(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

(2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/4


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

(Case C-82/18)

(2018/C 182/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

Respondents: Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

Questions referred

1.

Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

2.

In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

3.

Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

4.

Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

5.

Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

(2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/6


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2018 — Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U. v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-83/18)

(2018/C 182/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

Respondents: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

1.

Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

2.

In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

3.

Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

4.

Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

5.

Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

(2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/7


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET

(Case C-97/18)

(2018/C 182/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: ET

Questions referred

1.

Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR?

2.

Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment?


(1)  Council Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ 2006 L 328, p. 59).

(2)  NL:HR:2011:BP9449.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/8


Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-99/18 P)

(2018/C 182/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Harald Prantner and Daniel Giersch

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 30 November 2017 (T-475/16);

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court is based on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The judgment is inadequately reasoned. Not all of the factual circumstances, the interplay of which is essential to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, were taken into account. This constitutes an error of law.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1)).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-130/18)

(2018/C 182/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that there is no right to compensation in the event of cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure even in the case where the passenger is subject to a loss of time of less than three hours but more than two hours as a result of re-routing, because the actual arrival, in comparison with the scheduled arrival, is delayed by more than two hours but by less than three hours?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/9


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

(Case C-134/18)

(2018/C 182/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Vester

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

Questions referred

‘Are Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU infringed in the case where the last competent Member State refuses, upon commencement of incapacity for work, after expiry of a waiting period of 52 [Or. 9] weeks of incapacity for work, during which illness benefits were awarded, entitlement to invalidity benefit on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and the other, previously competent Member State applies, for the examination of the entitlement to a pro-rata invalidity benefit, a 104-week waiting period in accordance with the national law of that Member State?

If that is the case, is it compatible with the right of free movement that the person concerned, during this waiting time gap, is dependent on social assistance, or do Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU oblige the previously competent Member State to examine the entitlement to invalidity benefits after expiry of the waiting period under the legislation of the last competent Member State, even if the national law of the previously competent Member State does not permit this?’


(1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/9


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank

(Case C-143/18)

(2018/C 182/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano

Defendant: DSL Bank

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice such as that of the main proceedings which does not provide for the right of withdrawal to be inapplicable in the case of distance loan contracts whose performance has been fully completed by both parties at the consumer’s express request before the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal?

2.

Are Article 4(2), Article 5(1), the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 6(6) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, for proper receipt of information as provided for by national law in accordance with Article 5(1) and Article 3(1)(3)(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC and the exercise of the right of withdrawal by the consumer pursuant to national law, reference must be made to no consumer other than a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, having regard to all the relevant facts and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this contract?

3.

In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:

Is Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, after withdrawal from a distance consumer loan contract has been declared, the supplier must also pay to the consumer, beyond the sum he has received from the consumer in accordance with the distance contract, compensation for the benefit of use on this sum?


(1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/10


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 February 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-160/18)

(2018/C 182/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

1.

Must paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, (1) read in conjunction with Article 141 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the control mechanism described therein, including ex post controls, is merely intended to ensure that the competent authorities quickly become aware of any facts or circumstances relating to chain transactions that could give rise to doubts about whether the cif import price reported is correct and could constitute grounds for a supplementary inspection?

Or is an opposing interpretation correct, in other words, must the control mechanism described in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Article 3 of Regulation No 1484/95, including ex post controls, be interpreted as meaning that, if the importer makes one or more resales on the Community market at a price below the reported cif import price of the consignment plus the amount of import duties due, this does not satisfy the required conditions (or conditions of disposal) on the Community market and additional duties are therefore due for this reason alone? To answer the latter question, is it relevant whether the importer made the aforementioned resale or resales at a price below the applicable representative price? In this context is it significant that the representative price was calculated in a different way prior to 11 September 2009 than in the period since that date? Furthermore, in order to answer these questions, is it relevant whether the customers within the European Union and the importer are related companies?

2.

If it follows from the answers to the questions set out under 1 above that reselling at a loss constitutes a sufficient ground for rejecting the reported cif import price, how should the level of the additional duties due be determined? Should that basis be established in accordance with the methods for determining customs value laid down in Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (3) establishing the Community Customs Code? Or must it be established solely on the basis of the applicable representative price? Does Article 141(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 preclude use of the representative price determined prior to 11 September 2009?

3.

If it follows from the answers to Questions 1 and 2 that the decisive factor in additional duties being owed is the resale of imported products at a loss on the Community market, and the representative price must then be taken as a basis for calculating the level of those additional duties, are paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 compatible with Article 141 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 13 December 2001, Kloosterboer Rotterdam B.V., C-317/99, EU:C:2001:681?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/11


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 1 March 2018 — HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO v Aegean Airlines SA

(Case C-163/18)

(2018/C 182/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HQ, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her minor child IP, JO

Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 8(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Directive 90/[314]/EEC (2) on package travel (as implemented in national law), has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement from the air carrier?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can a passenger nevertheless hold the air carrier liable for reimbursement of the cost of his ticket if it is to be assumed that his tour organiser, if it were to be held liable, would be financially incapable of actually reimbursing the cost of the ticket and that tour organiser has also not taken any safeguard measures to guarantee reimbursement?


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

(2)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

(Case C-179/18)

(2018/C 182/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ronny Rohart

Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

Question referred

Must the principle of sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council of 29 February 1968, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State not permitting the military service which a worker has carried out in a Member State to be taken into account in the calculation of that worker’s retirement pension on the basis of his performance in that Member State, because at the time of his military service and subsequently as well, the person concerned was uninterruptedly an official of the European Union, and consequently, does not satisfy the conditions for equivalence as laid down in the legislation of that Member State?


(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-180/18)

(2018/C 182/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agrenergy Srl

Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?


(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

(Case C-184/18)

(2018/C 182/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

Question referred

Must the combined provisions of Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 43(2) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares, approved by Decree-Law No 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No 109- B/2001 of 27 December 2001) which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) where that transfer is made by a national of that Member State residing in a third country (Angola) to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?’


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/13


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Oro Efectivo S.L. v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

(Case C-185/18)

(2018/C 182/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oro Efectivo S.L.

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the principle of tax neutrality arising from that directive, and the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting the directive preclude a national rule of law under which a Member State may require payment of an indirect tax other than VAT from a business person or professional in respect of the purchase of movable property (specifically, gold, silver or jewellery) from a private individual where:

1.

the purchased object is going to be processed and subsequently sold on in the course of that business person’s economic activities;

2.

transactions subject to VAT will occur when the purchased property is reintroduced into the course of trade; and

3.

in such transactions the applicable legislation in that same Member State does not permit the business person or professional to deduct the amount paid by way of that tax in respect of the initial purchase?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/14


Action brought on 15 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-192/18)

(2018/C 182/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska, K. Banks, H. Krämer and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by introducing, in Article 13(1) to (3) of the Ustawa z dnia 12 lipca 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 12 July 2017 amending the Law on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts), a distinction between the retirement age for men and women working as ordinary judges, Supreme Court judges, and prosecutors, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and under Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast); (1) and that,

by lowering, by means of Article 13(1) of that law, the retirement age applicable to ordinary court judges, and at the same time granting the Minister for Justice the right to decide whether to extend the period of active service of judges pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, by introducing, in Article 13(1) to (3) of the Ustawa z dnia 12 lipca 2017 r. o zmianie ustawy — Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law of 12 July 2017 amending the Law on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts), provisions distinguishing between the retirement age for men and women working as ordinary judges, Supreme Court judges, and prosecutors, and by lowering, by means of Article 13(1) of that law, the retirement age applicable to ordinary court judges, and at the same time granting the Minister for Justice the right to decide whether to extend the period of active service of judges pursuant to Article 1(26)(b) and (c) of that law, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 5(a) and 9(1)(f) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) and its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/15


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge

(Case C-201/18)

(2018/C 182/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mydibel S.A.

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Must Articles 14, 15, 168, 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is, or is not, a revision/adjustment of VAT on an investment good comprising immovable property which had initially been deducted correctly, in the case where that immovable property acquired as a capital good was the subject of a ‘sale and lease back’ transaction, given that:

the ‘sale and lease back’ is created by the combined and simultaneous granting of a right of emphyteusis (being a temporary right in rem) by the taxable person to two financial institutions and by a leasing by those two institutions to the taxable person;

that ‘sale and lease back’ is a purely financial transaction designed to increase the liquidity of the taxable person;

the ‘sale and lease back’ transaction was not subject to VAT;

the investment property remained in the possession of the taxable person and was used for the taxable activity of the taxable person in a continuous and sustainable manner, both before and after the transaction?

Does an interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions leading to a revision/adjustment of the VAT initially deducted comply with the principle of neutrality of VAT and/or with the principle of equal treatment??


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/16


Action brought on 23 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-206/18)

(2018/C 182/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, J. Hottiaux and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

order the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/26/EU at a daily rate of EUR 87 612 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, the Member States were required to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with that directive by 10 April 2016. They were required immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

On 22 November 2017 the Republic of Poland sent to the Commission three already existing legal acts, which only partially transpose Directive 2014/26/EU. Because the Republic of Poland has still not incorporated into Polish law, or brought into force, all the necessary provisions, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In its application, the Commission requests that the Republic of Poland be ordered to pay a penalty payment at a daily rate of EUR 87 612 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case. That rate has been established by taking into account the seriousness of the infringement, the duration of the infringement, and the need to ensure deterrence.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/17


Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Électricité de France (EDF) against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2018 in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission

(Case C-221/18 P)

(2018/C 182/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Principally:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

rule on the action at first instance, upholding it and, in consequence, annulling Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 concerning State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002); (1)

In the alternative:

rule definitively on the first plea in law and the first part of the second plea in law of the action at first instance, upholding the first part of the second plea and, in consequence, hold that the principle of the market economy operator applies to the contested measure;

refer the dispute back to a differently-composed General Court for a ruling on the other pleas and arguments set out by the applicant in its application of 22 December 2015 and reserve the costs of the first instance;

In the further alternative:

refer the dispute back to a differently-composed General Court for a ruling on all the pleas and arguments set out by the applicant in its application of 22 December 2015 (including the pleas in the alternative) and reserve the costs of the first instance;

In any event:

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the applicant raises four principal grounds of appeal and one ground of appeal in the alternative.

The first ground of appeal alleges disregard of the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment delivered by the General Court on 15 December 2009, EDF v Commission (T-156/04). The judgment under appeal identifies the disputed measure as an alleged tax exemption, contrary to the judgment of 15 December 2009 delivered in that case which expressly rejected that approach. In order to justify that discrepancy in the identification of the disputed measure, the judgment under appeal appears impliedly, and wrongly, to point to the need to interpret the judgment of 15 December 2009‘in the light’ of the confirmatory judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 June 2012 (C-124/10 P). In that judgment, however, the Court of Justice did not rule on the identification of the disputed measure, which is a finding of fact.

The second ground of appeal alleges a distortion of the evidence adduced before the General Court. That evidence describes the effectively implemented EDF capital restructuration measure and does not enable identification of the alleged tax exemption identified by the General Court.

The third ground of appeal alleges disregard of the nature and scope of the obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination laid down in the recent case-law of the Court, in particular the judgment in Frucona Košice of 20 September 2007 (C-300/16 P), which was in fact the subject matter of written observations before the General Court.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges disregard by the General Court of the obligation to state reasons, both as regards the identification of the measure at issue and the lack of discussion of the applicant’s arguments based on the Frucona Košice judgment.

Finally, one ground of appeal raised in the alternative alleges an error of law in the identification of the alleged aid as new aid when it should have been classified as existing aid.


(1)  OJ 2016 L 34, p. 152.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/18


Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, Italy v Commission

(Case C-247/18 P)

(2018/C 182/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Italian Republic claims that the Court should:

set aside, pursuant to Articles 56 and 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the judgment of 25 January 2018, notified on 29 January 2018, delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-91/16, concerning the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015, notified on 18 December 2015, concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund contribution for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (POR Sicily 2000-2006); and to annul that Commission decision.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Italian Republic has appealed to the Court of Justice against the judgment of 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, by which the General Court of the European Union dismissed Italy’s action brought against Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015, notified on 18 December 2015, concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund contribution for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (POR Sicily 2000-2006)

First ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99, (1) of Articles 4, 6 and 10 of Regulation No 438/[2001], (2) of Article 317 TFEU, and of the principle of the burden of proof.

The General Court failed to find that the facts which it had accepted show that the audit reopened by the Commission in 2008 concerned the same expenditure as that which had already been the subject of a successful audit in 2005 and 2006, without new facts having emerged.

Second ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99, of Article 100 of Regulation No 1083/2006, (3) of Article 145 of Regulation No 1303/2013, (4) and of the principles of good administration, the right to be heard and the protection of legitimate expectations.

The General Court found, without stating reasons, that the fact that the correction procedure had taken over seven years in total was justified, during which time the Commission acted, essentially, in such a way that the mandatory period of six months after the hearing — during which a final decision had to be adopted at a time within the Commission’s discretion — had lapsed, thereby nullifying its peremptory nature.

Third ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1260/99 and of Article 10 of Regulation No 438/2001. Distortion of the facts.

The General Court established that the error rate found in the circumstances of the case was appreciably different in respect of the periods before and after 31 December 2006, as was the error rate in respect of expenditure for ‘coherent’ projects by contrast with other projects. However, it wrongfully accepted as accurate the correction based on the extrapolation of the single error rate of 32,65 %, applied indiscriminately in respect of all the years in which the programme was operational and to all types of projects, and thereby infringed the principles of proportionality of the corrections and representative nature of the samples.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).


General Court

28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/20


Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2018 — H v Council

(Case T-271/10 RENV) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - National staff member seconded to EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Redeployment decision - Power of the Head of the EUPM to decide on the redeployment of a seconded national staff member - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Manifest error of assessment - Psychological harassment))

(2018/C 182/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

Re:

In the first place, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of Criminal Justice Advisor — Prosecutor at the regional office in Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (ii) of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of EUPM referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2009 L 322, p. 22), confirming the decision of 7 April 2010, and in the second place, action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders H to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/20


Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2018 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-274/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets in bioethanol and ethanol - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Commission’s powers of investigation - Professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Documents exchanged following a previous inspection - Commission’s refusal to suspend the infringement proceedings at issue - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 182/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, C. Giolito, V. Bottka and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Brussels) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and P. Goffinet, and subsequently by F. Wijckmans, S. Engelen and S. De Keer, lawyers), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (Brussels) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and P. Goffinet, lawyers), and Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (Brussels) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and P. Goffinet, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1769 final of 12 March 2015, addressed to Alcogroup and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Alcodis, and relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40244 — Bioethanol) and the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 8 May 2015 addressed to Alcogroup in the context of the investigations AT.40244 — Bioethanol and AT.40054 — Oil and Biofuel Markets.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2.

Orders Alcogroup and Alcodis to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

3.

Orders the Orde van Vlaamse Balies, the Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and the Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles to bear their own respective costs incurred in the present proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/21


Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-732/16 R)

((Interim proceedings - State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Public guarantee granted by a public body - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application for a stay of proceedings - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 182/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and A. Guerrero Righetto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the order

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

2.

The order of 10 November 2016, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (T-732/16 R), is set aside.

3.

The costs are reserved.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/22


Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-766/16 R)

((Interim proceedings - State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Public guarantee granted by a public body - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application for a stay of proceedings - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 182/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the order

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

2.

The order of 11 November 2016, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (T-766/16 R), is set aside.

3.

The costs are reserved.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/22


Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for car battery recycling - Decision correcting a decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines - Period within which an action must be brought - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 182/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Matlock, United Kingdom), Berzelius Metall GmbH (Braubach, Germany), Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) (Bazoches-les-Gallerandes, France) (represented by: M. Brealey QC, I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. van Schaik, G. Conte, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling), as corrected by Commission Decision C(2017) 2223 final of 6 April 2017, and, second, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the order

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH and Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) shall pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/23


Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — UD v Commission

(Case T-574/17) (1)

((Civil Service - Recipient of a survivor’s pension - Social security - Rejection of a request for prior authorisation with a view to obtaining reimbursement of certain medical expenses - New request - Purely confirmatory document - Time limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 182/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UD (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant prior authorisation to obtain reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

Operative part of the order

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

UD shall bear her own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.


(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/23


Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)

(Case T-34/18)

(2018/C 182/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giove Gas Srl (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergonzini and F. Dinelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA’ — Application for registration No 14 740 559

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 1271/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

alter the contested decision in its entirety;

order the registration of the mark.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24


Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Szegedi v Parliament

(Case T-135/18)

(2018/C 182/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Csanád Szegedi (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Kristóf Bodó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul debit note No 2017-1635 issued by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament;

annul the recovery decision, in the amount of EUR 264 196,11, adopted by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 30 November 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, in the Secretary-General’s decision, the findings concerning reimbursement of travel expenses and of expenses for accredited parliamentary assistants were unfounded. The applicant claimed the reimbursement of travel expenses only in those cases in which he was entitled to do so in accordance with Decision No 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.

The accredited parliamentary assistants referred to in the decision, who had a contractual relationship with the European Parliament, performed support tasks in relation to the applicant’s role as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in Brussels and Strasbourg.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equality of arms.

The applicant did not have access to the evidence supporting the facts set out in the Secretary-General’s decision. Although the applicant submitted a written request, the Secretary-General did not provide him with that evidence, which prevented him from at any time submitting observations on the substance. The Secretary-General’s decision, on which the debit note was based, as a legal measure affecting the applicant, was adopted in breach of the principles of impartial and fair procedure, equality of arms and the applicant’s rights of defence.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Secretary-General’s decision was vitiated by an error of law as regards the burden of proof. Contrary to what was stated in the Secretary-General’s decision, the arguments set out in paragraph 54 of the Court’s judgment of 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13, Marciani v Parliament, cannot be considered relevant in the present case, precisely because in the case of MEP Marciani the so-called ‘GDD Rules’ (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament) had to be applied, whereas, during the applicant’s mandate as a MEP, Council Regulation (EC) No 160/2009 was already in force.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for reimbursement of the salary paid to the accredited parliamentary assistants. This plea has two limbs:

The first limb of the fourth plea alleges that there is no legal relationship between the applicant and the European Parliament. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 160/2009, it is the European Parliament, and not the MEP, which has a legal relationship with the accredited parliamentary assistant and the European Parliament does not reimburse expenses, but pays a salary. As regards the employment relationship of accredited parliamentary assistants, the applicant has no contractual relationship with the European Parliament. The European Parliament did not pay the applicant the relevant salary for the accredited parliamentary assistant. In the absence of any legal relationship or any basis in law, the applicant cannot be under any obligation to reimburse the European Parliament.

The second limb of the fourth plea in law alleges that activity outside the accredited parliamentary assistants’ work does not give rise to any right to the repayment of the salary paid. Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union does not prohibit the exercise of an activity outside the service, but requires only that the relevant consent be obtained from the appointing authority. On the other hand, where consent is not requested, the rules do not lay down penalties in the form of full reimbursement of the salary paid.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that a rule which lays down a requirement may not be applied retroactively. Point 8 of the Secretary-General’s decision refers to, as part of the legal basis for the decision, Article 39a of the Implementing Measures, although the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2015/C 397/03) has been applicable from 1 January 2016, with the result that it is not relevant to the present dispute.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality, as regards the determination of the amount. The amount claimed is not justified in detail or by means of a calculation, and assumes that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that an assessment was made of the document confirming the date of travel, attached to the request for reimbursement of travel expenses, which departed from its purpose and drew an incorrect inference from that document.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/26


Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others

(Case T-198/18)

(2018/C 182/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC (Limassol, Cyprus), Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC (Limassol) (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup and European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-197/18, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/26


Action brought on 23 March 2018 — VQ v ECB

(Case T-203/18)

(2018/C 182/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VQ (represented by: G. Cahill, Barrister)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the European Central Bank’s Decision SNC-2016-0026 of 14 March 2018;

declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation (1) is unlawful, and therefore annul the said decision; and

order the ECB to pay the costs.

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 the ECB infringed Article 18(1) of the SSM Regulation and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by imposing an administrative pecuniary penalty on the grounds of a legal framework based on non-directly effective EU and national law.

The applicant pleads that its repurchases of treasury shares between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 should not be considered in breach of Articles 77(a) and 78 of Regulation 575/2013, (2) since the capital conservation buffer was not in force nor determined until 1 January 2016.

As long as the decision of the ECB relies on the rules governing the capital conservation buffer in Directive 2013/36, (3) which were not binding not in force nor determined until 1 January 2016, the applicant respectfully submits that the ECB has imposed an administrative pecuniary penalty in the absence of a directly applicable rule of EU and national law.

The contested decision therefore breaches Article 18(1) of the SSM Regulation and, in particular, the principle of legality enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB infringed Article 132(1)(b) of Regulation 468/2014, (4) as it orders the publication of an administrative pecuniary penalty on a non-anonymised basis.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation is unlawful and in breach of Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in that it imposes a duty to publish an administrative pecuniary penalty irrespective of the fact that the applicant has the intention to bring an action before the General Court within the time limits provided in Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU.

By introducing a rule such as Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation, the Council has deprived an applicant interested in bringing an action against the decision not to anonymise an administrative pecuniary penalty of the two-month time-limit provided in Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU.

The contested provision derogates from the two month time-limit to bring an action of annulment, and grants the ECB a unilateral power to determine at which time a credit institution must bring an action.

While the ECB has the power to publish the administrative pecuniary penalty, the credit institution concerned must bring an application prior to the ECB’s decision to publish the penalty. This situation creates an unreasonable uncertainty on the credit institution which can eventually limit its ability to bring an action and, ultimately, violates its fundamental right to an effective remedy.

Consequently, Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation is contrary to Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Inasmuch as the ECB deprived the applicant of its right to an effective remedy, the contested Decision should be annulled.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63)

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/28


Action brought on 30 March 2018 — Piaggio & C. v EUIPO — Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group (Mopeds)

(Case T-219/18)

(2018/C 182/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Piaggio & C. SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Zhongneng Industry Group Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1 783 655-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 in Case R 1496/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

declare the proprietor’s Community design registered under No 1 783 655-0002 invalid, on all the grounds set out in the present application;

order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 6 CDR;

Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) CDR;

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) CDR.


28.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/29


Action brought on 5 April 2018 — Transtec v. Commission

(Case T-228/18)

(2018/C 182/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

and consequently:

annul the decision of 26 March 2018 by which the European Commission rejected the tender of the consortium led by the applicant for Lot No. 3 in the context of the ‘Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (SIEA EUROPAID/138778/DH/SER/MULTI’)’ call for tenders (‘Call for Tenders’) relating to a framework contract for the supply of services for the benefit of third countries receiving external EU aid and by which it awarded Lot No. 3 to 10 other tenderers,

call on the defendant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure (cf. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), to provide the following: (i) the characteristics and relative advantages of the 10 successful tenders for Lot No. 3 along with the scores obtained with regard to the criteria set out in points 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 of the technical assessment grid contained in Part C-I of ‘the Global Organisation and Methodology and the ‘technical’ and ‘financial’ scores obtained by those tenders for Lot No. 3 (ii) a copy of the evaluation committee’s detailed report;

declare the claim for damages in the amount of EUR 2 400 000 with a gross margin admissible and well founded;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its argument, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

1.

A first plea, alleging that, by failing to exclude, on the ground of irregularities, a member of one of the tendering consortia to which the contract was awarded, the Commission infringed Article 106 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1) (‘the Financial Regulation’) and point 4 of the Instructions to Tenderers (‘the Instructions’).

2.

A second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Commission and that, by failing to carry out a sufficiently careful examination of abnormally low tenders, the Commision infringed Article 110(5) of the Financial Regulation, Article 151 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1) (‘the implementing regulation’), the obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) to have due regard for the principle of sound administration and point 15.3 of the Instructions.

3.

A third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons arising from 113(2) of the Finance Regulation and of Article 161(1) of the implementing regulation.

4.

A fourth plea, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter.

5.

A fifth plea, alleging that the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the guarantee of fair competition under Article 102(1) and (2) of the Financial Regulation have been infringed as a result of the illegality of point 7 of the Instructions.

6.

A sixth plea, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration under Article 41 of the Charter as a result of the illegality of point 7.3 of the Instructions.