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

(2018/C 301/01)

Last publication

OJ C 294, 20.8.2018

Past publications

OJ C 285, 13.8.2018

OJ C 276, 6.8.2018

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018

OJ C 259, 23.7.2018

OJ C 249, 16.7.2018

OJ C 240, 9.7.2018

These texts are available on:

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

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

(Case C-390/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Taking account in new criminal proceedings of a previous conviction in another Member State - Special procedure for recognition of a conviction in another Member State - Review and legal reclassification of the earlier decision - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 82(1) TFEU))

(2018/C 301/02)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

Dániel Bertold Lada

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings, read in the light of Article 82 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the taking into account in a Member State, in new criminal proceedings brought against a person, of a final judgment previously handed down by a court of another Member State convicting that person of other offences being conditional on a special procedure for prior recognition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the courts of the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Marcandi Ltd, trading as ‘Madbid’ v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-544/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Issuing of ‘credits’ that can be used to place bids in online auctions - Supply of services for consideration - Preliminary transaction - Article 73 - Taxable amount))

(2018/C 301/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marcandi Ltd, trading as ‘Madbid’

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the issue of ‘credits’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow an operator’s clients to bid in the auctions that it organises, are a supply of services for consideration, for which the consideration is the amount paid in return for those ‘credits’.

2.

Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the value of ‘credits’ used in order to bid is not included in the consideration received by the taxable person in return for the supplies of goods that it makes for the benefit of users who won an auction organised by it, or users who purchased a product using the ‘buy now’ or ‘earned discount’ features.

3.

When interpreting the relevant provisions of EU and national law, courts of a Member State that find that the same transaction has been the object of a different tax treatment for the purposes of VAT in another Member State have the power, or even — depending on whether there is a judicial remedy under national law against its decisions — an obligation, to refer a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-626/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Landfill of waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Existing landfill sites - Article 14 - Definite decision on whether or not operations may continue - Article 13 - Closure procedures - Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum))

(2018/C 301/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

2.

Orders that if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment the Slovak Republic must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 5 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), has been complied with in full;

3.	Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 1 000 000;

4.	Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation v ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS

(Case C-27/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage - Claim for compensation for damage allegedly caused by anticompetitive conduct committed in various Member States - Article 5(5) - Operations of a branch - Meaning))

(2018/C 301/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

Defendants:‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS

Interveners:‘ŽIA Valda’ AB, ‘VA Reals’ AB, Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inter alia, the place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses.

2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be understood to mean either the place of conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement contrary to Article 101 TFEU, or the place in which the predatory prices were offered and applied in cases where such practices constituted an infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

3.

Article 5(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch’ covers an action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by abuse of a dominant position consisting of the application of predatory pricing, where a branch of the undertaking which holds the dominant position actually and significantly participated in that abusive practice.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — NN A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-28/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Corporation tax - National tax legislation making the transfer of the losses sustained by a permanent establishment, situated on national territory, of a company established in another Member State, to a resident company belonging to the same group, subject to a condition as to the impossibility of using such losses for the purpose of a foreign tax))

(2018/C 301/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NN A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the resident companies in a group are permitted to deduct, from their group profits, the losses sustained by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident subsidiary of that group only in the case where the rules applicable in the Member State in which that subsidiary has its registered office do not permit those losses to be deducted from the latter’s profits, when the application of that legislation is combined with that of a convention preventing double taxation allowing, in the latter Member State, the deduction from the income tax payable by the subsidiary of a sum corresponding to the income tax paid, in the Member State on the territory of which that permanent establishment is situated, in respect of the latter’s activity. However, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such legislation in the case where the effect of its application is to deprive that group of any effective possibility of deducting those losses from the group’s overall profits, where it is not possible to set off those losses against that subsidiary’s profits in the Member State on the territory of which that subsidiary is established, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-43/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Staff of international missions of the European Union - Jurisdiction to rule on disputes concerning employment contracts - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the Brussels (Belgium) courts - Decision not to renew the final contract - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Claims for compensation for unfair dismissal - Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account - Jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union))

(2018/C 301/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara, L. Radu Bouyon and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, A. Aresu and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: M. Vicente Hernandez, avocate, and subsequently by E. Raoult, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2016, Jenkinson v Council and Others (T-602/15, EU:T:2016:660);

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

3.	Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — the Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-213/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Articles 17, 18, 23 and 24 - Prior international protection procedure ongoing in one Member State - New application in another Member State - Take back request not made within the prescribed periods - Surrender of the person concerned for criminal prosecution))

(2018/C 301/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which a new application for international protection has been lodged is responsible for examining that application when no take back request has been made by that Member State within the periods laid down in Article 23(2) of that regulation, even though another Member State was responsible for examining applications for international protection lodged previously and the appeal brought against the rejection of one of those applications was pending before a court of that other Member State when those periods expired.

2.

Article 18(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the making by a Member State of a take back request in respect of a third-country national who is staying on its territory without a residence document does not require that Member State to suspend its examination of an appeal brought against the rejection of an application for international protection lodged previously, and subsequently to terminate that examination in the event that the requested Member State agrees to that request.

3.

Article 24(5) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a Member State making a take back request on the basis of Article 24 of that regulation, following the expiry, in the requested Member State, of the periods laid down in Article 23(2) thereof, is not required to inform the authorities of that requested Member State that an appeal brought against the rejection of an application for international protection lodged previously is pending before a court of the requesting Member State.

4.

Article 17(1) and Article 24 of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings at the time the transfer decision was made, in which an applicant for international protection has been surrendered by one Member State to another Member State under a European arrest warrant and is staying on the territory of that second Member State without having lodged a new application for international protection there, that second Member State may request that first Member State to take back that applicant and is not required to decide to examine the application lodged by that applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-217/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community design - Application for registration of designs representing beakers - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 36(1)(c) - Graphic representation - Articles 45 and 46 - Attribution of a date of filing - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Article 4(1)(e) and Article 10(1) and (2)))

(2018/C 301/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (represented by: C. Drzymalla, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the appeal;

2.	Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marle Participations SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-320/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 9 and 168 - Economic activity - Direct or indirect involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries - Letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary - Deduction of input tax - VAT paid by a holding company on expenditure incurred in acquiring shares in other companies))

(2018/C 301/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marle Participations SARL

Respondent: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary amounts to ‘involvement in the management’ of that subsidiary, which must be considered to be an economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, giving rise to the right to deduct the value added tax (VAT) on the expenditure incurred by the company for the purpose of acquiring shares in that subsidiary, where that supply of services is made on a continuing basis, is carried out for consideration and is taxed, meaning that the letting is not exempt, and there is a direct link between the service rendered by the supplier and the consideration received from the beneficiary. Expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the subsidiaries’ management by letting them a building and which, on that basis, carries out an economic activity has to be regarded as belonging to its general expenditure and the VAT paid on that expenditure must, in principle, be capable of being deducted in full.

2.

Expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the management of only some of those subsidiaries and which, with regard to the others, does not, by contrast, carry out an economic activity must be regarded as only partially belonging to its general expenditure, so that the VAT paid on that expenditure may be deducted only in proportion to the expenditure which is inherent in the economic activity, in accordance with the apportionment criteria defined by the Member States, which, when exercising that power, must have regard to the aims and broad logic of that directive and, on that basis, provide for a method of calculation which objectively reflects the part of the input expenditure actually to be attributed, respectively, to economic and to non-economic activity, which it is for the national courts to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb eV v Princesport GmbH

(Case C-339/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Textile fibre names and related labelling and marking requirements - Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 - Articles 7 and 9 - Pure textile products - Multi-fibre textile products - Labelling or marking methods))

(2018/C 301/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für lauteren Wettbewerb eV

Defendant: Princesport GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 4 and the first subparagraph of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that regulation, must be interpreted to the effect that they impose a general labelling or marking obligation in order to give an indication of the fibre composition of all textile products, including those textile products defined in Article 7 of that regulation.

2.

Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1007/2011 must be interpreted to the effect that it does not impose a requirement to use, on the label or marking of a pure textile product, one of the three terms referred to in that provision, that is to say, ‘100 %’, ‘pure’ or ‘all’. When those terms are used, they may be used jointly.

3.	Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1007/2011 must be interpreted to the effect that the obligation to indicate, on the label or marking, the name and percentage by weight of all the constituent fibres of the textile product in question does not apply to pure textile products.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd

(Case C-532/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(b) - Scope - Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ - Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’))

(2018/C 301/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning 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 and, in particular, of Article 2(b) thereof must be interpreted as not covering the case of an air carrier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, under a wet lease, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flights, even where the booking confirmation of a seat on a flight issued to passengers states that that flight is operated by the former air carrier.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 June 2018 — Windrush Aka LLP v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Jerry Dammers

(Case C-325/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark The Specials - Genuine use - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark))

(2018/C 301/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Windrush Aka LLP (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, instructed by S. Britton, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Jerry Dammers (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, instructed by C. Fehler, Solicitor)

Operative part of the order

1.	The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

2.	Windrush Aka LLP shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — István Bán v KP 2000 kft., Edit Kovács

(Case C-24/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Purely internal situation - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the case in the main proceedings - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: István Bán

Defendants: KP 2000 kft., Edit Kovács

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Court of Districts II and III of Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 12 December 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-130/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Right to compensation in the event of flight cancellation - Re-routing not allowing a passenger to reach his final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight - Delay of between two and three hours))

(2018/C 301/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the order

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, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who was informed of the cancellation of his flight less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure of that flight has the right to the compensation provided for in that provision where the re-routing offered by the carrier allowed him to reach his final destination more than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival of the cancelled flight, but less than three hours after that scheduled time of arrival.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

Appeal brought on 12 January 2018 by Acquafarm S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-458/16, Acquafarm v Commission

(Case C-40/18 P)

(2018/C 301/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Acquafarm S.L. (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Acquafarm S.L. to pay its own costs.

Appeal brought on 2 March 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

(Case C-170/18 P)

(2018/C 301/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16 CJ v ECDC (ECLI:EU:T:2017:894) in whole;

—	consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the new termination decision of 2 December 2015 and award the appellant the emoluments and monetary compensation claimed before the General Court plus statutory interest;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, distorted the evidence and erred in legally classifying the facts in holding that circumstances had not substantively changed between the date of issue of the annulled termination decision and that of the new termination decision so as to prevent ECDC from reissuing the annulled termination decision.

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, failed to state sufficient reasons, erred in legally classifying the facts and misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU in holding that the new termination decision was not disproportional under Article 5(4) TEU.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court gave the scope of res judicata an overly extensive meaning.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

—	misinterpreted the judgment of the Civil Tribunal in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC and understood the resulting res judicata in an overly extensive manner,

—	misinterpreted Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations on the protection of whistleblowers by failing to give useful effect thereto.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the rule on the noncontractual liability of the EU, subsidiarily erroneously legally classified the facts, when it held that the contested decision was not reasoned in a manner causing non-material damage to the appellant.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

(Case C-297/18)

(2018/C 301/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Question referred

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit, especially high minimum penalties or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal

(Case C-378/18)

(2018/C 301/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Defendant: Reinhard Westphal

Questions referred

1.	Does the prescription period within the meaning of Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) begin with the payment of the aid or is the beginning of that period governed by the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95? (2)

2.	Are the prescription rules under Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 or Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 provisions which impose administrative penalties within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95?

3.

Can Article 52a of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 with its provision regarding the retroactive application of the prescription rule of Article 49(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 also be applied analogously to Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001? If the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 is applicable (first question), the other questions do not need to be answered; if it is not applicable, the third question becomes devoid of object if the second question is answered in the affirmative.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against YA and AIRBNB Ireland UC — other parties: Hotelière Turenne SAS, Pour un hébergement et tourisme professionnel (AHTOP), Valhotel

(Case C-390/18)

(2018/C 301/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

YA and AIRBNB Ireland UC

Other parties: Hotelière Turenne SAS, Pour un hébergement et tourisme professionnel (AHTOP), Valhotel

Questions referred

1.	Do the services provided in France by the company Airbnb Ireland UC via an electronic platform managed from Ireland benefit from the freedom to provide services contemplated in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000? (1)

2.	Are the restrictive rules relating to the exercise of the profession of real estate agent in France, laid down by Law No 70-9 of 2 January 1970 on intermediaries in real-estate transactions (‘the Hoguet Law’), enforceable against the company Airbnb Ireland UC?

---

(1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others

(Case C-394/18)

(2018/C 301/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte di appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

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

Questions referred

1.

Can the creditors of the company being divided, whose credit interests antedate the division, who have not taken advantage of the remedy of lodging an objection under Article 2503 of the Civil Code (and therefore of the protection tool introduced in implementation of Article 12 of [Directive 82/891/EEC]), (1) use an action to set aside under Article 2901 of the Civil Code after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and, therefore, to take precedence in enforcement over the creditors of the recipient company or companies and to be placed in a preferential position before the shareholders of those companies?

2.	Does the notion of nullity, provided for by Article 19 of the directive, refer only to actions affecting the validity of the instrument of division or also to actions which, despite not affecting its validity, result in its relative lack of effect or unenforceability?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-395/18)

(2018/C 301/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

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

Questions referred

1.

Do Articles 57 and 71(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which requires the exclusion of a tendering economic operator where, during the tendering procedure, a ground is established for excluding a subcontractor forming part of the group of three subcontractors specified in the tender, rather than requiring the tenderer to replace the designated subcontractor?

2.

In the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the option of excluding the tenderer is one of the options open to the Member State, does the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the EU Treaty, referred to in recital 101 of Directive 2014/24/EU and established as a general principle of EU law by the Court of Justice, preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which provides that, where a ground for excluding a designated subcontractor is established during the tendering procedure, a tendering economic operator is to be excluded in all cases, including where there are other subcontractors that have not been excluded and satisfy the requirements for the provision of the services to be subcontracted, or where the tendering economic operator declares that it will not subcontract as it satisfies the requirements for the provision of the services on its own?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Infohos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-400/18)

(2018/C 301/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Infohos

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 13.A(1)(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, now Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, be interpreted as permitting Member States to attach an exclusivity condition to the exemption provided for therein, whereby an independent group which also supplies services to non-members is also liable in full to VAT for the services supplied to its members?

---

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

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

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings v C.M. Service Srl, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

(Case C-402/18)

(2018/C 301/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings

Respondent: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

Respondent and cross-appellant: C.M. Service Srl

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 25 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) and Article 71 of Directive 2014//24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (2) which do not contemplate any limits on the proportion of the contract that may be subcontracted or on the reduction in prices that may be applied to subcontractors, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national rules on public procurement, such as the Italian rules contained in Article 118(2) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, pursuant to which no more than 30 % of the total value of the contract may be subcontracted and the successful contractor must apply in respect of the subcontracted services the same unit prices as those stipulated in the decision awarding the contract, with a reduction of not more than 20 %?

---

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

(2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 June 2018 — AURES Holdings, a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-405/18)

(2018/C 301/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AURES Holdings, a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Questions referred

1.	Can the concept of freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 49 TFEU (1) be held to cover a simple transfer of the place of a company’s management from one Member State to another Member State?

2.	If so, is it contrary to Article 49, Article 52 and Article 54 TFEU for national law not to allow an entity from another Member State, when relocating its place of business or place of management to the Czech Republic, to claim a tax loss incurred in that other Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 47.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 June 2018 — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

(Case C-410/18)

(2018/C 301/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolas Aubriet

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Question referred

Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 3(5)(b) of the amended Law of 24 July 2014 on State financial aid for higher education studies, which does not take into account any other connecting factor, that is to say, the condition that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a period of at least five years in the course of a reference period of seven years at the time at which the application for financial aid is made, necessary in order to attain the objective put forward by the Luxembourg legislature, namely that of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree?

Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by Mykola Yanovych Azarov against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16, Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union

(Case C-416/18 P)

(2018/C 301/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16;

—

itself deliver a final decision in the proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

—	in the alternative to the form of order set out in the paragraph above, refer the case back to the General Court for a decision subject to the legal findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice and reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its appraisal of the infringement of both the right to property and the freedom to conduct business. In particular, it wrongly found the measures to be appropriate and proportionate. Further, the General Court made procedural errors and infringed procedural rights.

2.	The General Court wrongly found that the Council had not abused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out any specific checks in respect of the appellant. Second, the General Court wrongly assumed that the absence of specific evidence was irrelevant.

3.	The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed the right to sound administration. First, the General Court erred in law in its discussion on the Council’s obligation of impartiality. Second, the General Court misconstrued the scope of the obligation to state reasons.

4.	The General court wrongly held that the Council had committed no ‘manifest error of assessment’.

5.	The General Court infringed the right to a fair trial by relying on purely political reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2018 — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

(Case C-421/18)

(2018/C 301/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

Defendant: JN

Question referred

Is the action brought by a Bar Association seeking an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees owed to it a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2018 in Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15, Hungary v European Commission

(Case C-456/18 P)

(2018/C 301/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

By its appeal, Hungary claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 in Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15;

—

annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 of 15 July 2015 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses in Hungary, in so far as that decision orders the suspension of the application of both the progressive tax rate of the health contribution and of the reduction of that contribution in the case of investments, as provided for in a dohányipari vállalkozások 2015. évi egészségügyi hozzájárulásáról szóló 2014. évi XCIV. törvény (Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution for 2015 of tobacco industry businesses), adopted by the Hungarian Parliament;

—	annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 of 15 July 2015 on the 2014 amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee in so far as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive rate of the food chain inspection fee;

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hungarian Government essentially bases its appeal on three arguments, in accordance with the criteria developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law.

First, the Hungarian Government bases its appeal on the contention that the General Court misapplied the law in the examination of the connected pleas in law.

Second, the General Court misconstrued, in respect of the obligation to state reasons, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) of the Charter.

Third, the Hungarian Government alleges an error of assessment which led to the complaints set out by Hungary not being properly considered and led to an inappropriate interpretation of the arguments put forward in its action.

According to the Hungarian Government, the Commission failed fully to respect the relevant procedural rules and the duty to state reasons when it adopted the contested decisions, the facts were not accurately stated and the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and exceeded its powers. Although the examination of all of the foregoing was within the jurisdiction of the General Court, the latter failed to carry out such an examination or failed to do so properly.

The Hungarian Government submits that, as a consequence, the General Court first misinterpreted Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning that article. Second, the General Court made an error of assessment when it incorrectly assessed - according to the Hungarian Government - the argument put forward in relation to the requirements of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment and wrongly drew the conclusion that consistency with earlier Commission decisions and with its practice was not essential from the perspective of legal certainty. Similarly, the General Court disregarded the argument of the Hungarian Government regarding whether the conditions for State aid were fulfilled and also ignored that relevant argument for the purposes of the suspension. Finally, the General Court also failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by drawing the conclusion, contrary to the view expressed by the Commission throughout the proceedings, that a condition for ordering the suspension of the decisions was that Hungary did not intend to implement them and the latter had been established in a satisfactory manner by the Commission in its decisions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-643/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Request for access to information relating to the determination of the most efficient 10 % of the steel industry installations - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment - Observance of time-limits))

(2018/C 301/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Martenczuk initially, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the Commission decision dated 25 September 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents which contain information on the basis of assessment used by the Commission to determine the most efficient 10 % of the installations used as a starting point for defining the principles for setting ex ante benchmarks, in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Buonotourist v Commission

(Case T-185/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 301/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Buonotourist Srl (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome, Italy)(represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Buonotourist Srl, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Declares that the Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190,8.6.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità v Commission

(Case T-186/15) (1)

((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))

(2018/C 301/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Declares that Asstra Associazione Trasporti is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 –Klyuyev v Council

(Case T-240/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to reputation - Plea of illegality))

(2018/C 301/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1) and, second, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Mr Andriy Klyuyev’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders Mr Klyuyev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

4.	Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Klyuyev in relation to the claim for annulment in part of Decision 2017/381 and of Implementing Regulation 2017/374 made in the statement of modification.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-644/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Exception concerning the protection of legal advice - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))

(2018/C 301/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4286 final of 1 July 2016, refusing access to certain documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)

(Case T-707/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI - Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 301/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enoitalia SpA (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina).

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 (Case R 1085/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas and Enoitalia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Enoitalia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament

(Case T-13/17) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Pre-financing amount fixed at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules for the application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Misuse of powers))

(2018/C 301/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-30 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 relating to the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision limits the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment conditional on the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Europa Terra Nostra eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — APF v Parliament

(Case T-16/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Abuse of power))

(2018/C 301/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-15 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CLF v Parliament

(Case T-54/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political party - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 301/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-16 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Pegasus v Parliament

(Case T-57/17) (1)

((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 301/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Pegasus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-31 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Pegasus to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)

(Case T-694/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS - Earlier EU word mark AVORY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 301/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 1758/2016-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms García-Sanjuan Machado and Link Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Link Entertainment, SLU to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-147/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - European Union’s own resources - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Application to be exempted from making available own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/41)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly made by the director of the directorate ‘Own resources and financial programming’ of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission contained in the letter with reference Ares (2015) 217973 of 20 January 2015 by which the latter dismissed the application to be exempted from making available own resources in an amount of CZK 53 976 340 submitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), and requested the Czech authorities to take the necessary measures to credit the Commission’s account with the amount of CZK 53 976 340, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of the letter concerned, at the risk of having to pay default interest pursuant to Article 11 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	There is no need to rule on the Slovak Republic’s application to intervene.

3.	The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-478/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - European Union’s own resources - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/42)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented initially by R.-H. Radu, A. Buzoianu and E. Gane, subsequently by R.-H. Radu, E. Gane, A. Wellman and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and A. Ştefănuc, subsequently by A. Caeiros and G.-D. Balan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission which is contained in the letter with reference Ares (2015) 2453089 of 11 June 2015 by which the latter ordered Romania to provide it with the gross amount of EUR 1 079 513,09, from which 25 % should be deducted for collection costs, corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of that letter, at the risk of having to pay default interest pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	There is no need to rule on the Slovak Republic’s application to intervene.

3.	Romania is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the European Commission.

4.	Romania, the Commission and the Slovak Republic shall each bear their own costs relating to the latter’s application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — TL v EDPS

(Case T-452/17) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Protection of personal data - Public nature of the case-law of the General Court - Request for anonymisation and removal from the Internet of a judgment of the General Court - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory act - No new and substantial facts - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: T. Léonard and M. Cock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: A. Buchta, M. Pérez Asinari, C. Gayrel and M. Guglielmetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 16 May 2017 rejecting the request seeking, in essence, (i) a new analysis of the question of its jurisdiction in relation to the dissemination on the Internet of the name of a party to proceedings by the Court of Justice of the European Union and (ii) an order that the judgment in [confidential] be anonymised.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	TL and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-476/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Active substance diflubenzuron - Conditions of approval for placing on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))

(2018/C 301/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017 L 128, p. 10)

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the General Court of 2 July 2018 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission

(Case T-577/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - Customs union - Authorisation for inward processing - Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers - Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Examination of the economic conditions - Scope of the Commission’s conclusions - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (Isbergues, France) (represented by: M. Günes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and F. Clotuche Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision ostensibly contained in the minutes of the sixth meeting of the Customs Expert Group Section ‘Special Procedures other than transit’ of 2 May 2017 concluding that the essential interests of EU producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products requested by Euro-Mit Staal BV.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on Euro-Mit Staal BV’s application to intervene.

3.	In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Commission shall pay the costs incurred by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo.

4.	Euro-Mit Staal BV shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — FMC v Commission

(Case T-719/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl) - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))

(2018/C 301/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FMC Corp. (established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, I. Antypas and A. Accarain, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 of 23 August 2017 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 218, p. 7)

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-757/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal - Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand - Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction - Claim for annulment - Act not adversely affecting an official - Claim for damages - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of two Commission memoranda of 27 March and 6 April 2017 and (ii) compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the outcome and duration of the disciplinary proceedings CMS 15/017 and CMS 12/063.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2.	Mr Petrus Kerstens is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-784/17 RII)

((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Order granting suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels - Application for variation - Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 301/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17).

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for variation of the order of 18 January 2018, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R, not published, under appeal, EU:T:2018:17) is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Planet v Commission

(Case T-29/18) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the contract ‘Technical Assistance to Ecowas for the implementation of the 10th EDF Transport Facilitation Project II (TFP II)’ - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action had been brought - Withdrawal of the contested act - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2018/C 301/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Planet AE Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of an implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 6 November 2017 requesting access to certain documents relating to the contract ‘Technical Assistance to Ecowas for the implementation of the 10th EDF Transport Facilitation Project II (TFP II)’.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T-104/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 301/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Rius Coma, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the REA’s decision to seek full repayment of the grant awarded for the Food-Watch project.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-244/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Recovery of the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2018/C 301/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Empokiri Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 relating the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 76 282,08 plus default interest.

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-299/18 R)

((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Waiting period - Abnormally low tender - Prima facie case - No urgency))

(2018/C 301/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036).

Operative part of the order

1.	The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2.	The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Germann Avocats and  XJ (*1) v Commission

(Case T-352/18)

(2018/C 301/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Germann Avocats LLC (Geneva, Switzerland),  XJ (*1) (represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	annul the defendant’s decision contained in a letter received by the applicants on 2 April 2018, rejecting the joint tender submitted by them for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042);

—

order the defendant to provide legally satisfactory transparency in the form of pertinent information and quantitative and qualitative analysis concerning the competition-related situation pertaining in particular to the successful tenderer and in relation to diversity concerns in the relevant markets for the tender at issue;

—

order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 35 000, plus interest to the applicants, on account of the harm they allegedly suffered as a result of failure to respect their legitimate expectations, a loss of opportunity to perform the contract in question and infringement of other rights and principles;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in its evaluation of their tender in respect of the call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in its evaluation of the applicants’ tender in respect of the said call for tenders.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to secure the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to a competitive market situation guaranteeing a level playing field among competitors, including by tolerating and/or favouring actual or possible abuses of dominant market positions, and that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration, transparency and good faith in the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

Action brought on 29 June 2018 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H’ugo’s (Hugo’s Burger Bar)

(Case T-397/18)

(2018/C 301/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hugo’s Hotel Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: R. Sladden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H’ugo’s GmbH (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Hugo’s Burger Bar in red, black and white — Application for registration No 14 608 806

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 in Case R 1879/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Overturn the Board of Appeal’s Decision;

—	Declare that the Application Number 014608806 may proceed to registration

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

(Case T-400/18)

(2018/C 301/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2017 C 277, p. 51.

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)

(Case T-403/18)

(2018/C 301/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘W S wellpharma shop’ — Application for registration No 14 494 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 in Case R 1448/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered;

—	order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-414/18)

(2018/C 301/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and

—	order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to incomplete notification of the contested decision.

2.	Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision.

3.	Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right to a fair hearing.

4.

Unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) as a basis for the contested decision. In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 — provisions which form the basis for the contested decision — establish an opaque system for the setting of contributions, which is contrary to Articles 16, 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and pursuant to which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not ensured.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

(Case T-424/18)

(2018/C 301/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour SA (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of crossed lines — Application for registration No 14 572 697

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2018 in Case R 945/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18)

(2018/C 301/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Application No 16 886 541

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2603/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)

(Case T-434/18)

(2018/C 301/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ULTRARANGE — Application No 16 665 663

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2018 in Case R 2544/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 18 July 2018 — TUIfly v Commission

(Case T-447/18)

(2018/C 301/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TUIfly GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Giesberts and M. Gayger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Articles 7 and 8 and Articles 9, 10 and 11, in so far as the latter relate to Articles 7 and 8, of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the applicant’s rights of defence, because the Commission failed to grant the applicant access to the file of the investigation and to place the applicant in a position in which it could effectively defend itself.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant was selectively favoured.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded, from a procedural point of view, its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, contrary to procedural requirements, erred in applying the strict standard of the 2014 aviation guidelines in its examination, although the relevant facts relate to the earlier years 2003 to 2009.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle by insufficiently establishing the facts. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission improperly concluded from the absence of a comprehensive business plan with regard to agreements entered into with the applicant that there was allegedly no strategy for ensuring the profitability of Klagenfurt airport (‘KLU’) and that it carried out manifestly contradictory factual assessments in the decision with regard to KLU’s long-term profitability strategy.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle by insufficiently establishing the facts in the context of its ex ante profitability analysis which was drawn up subsequently. In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in not taking into account, as airport revenue, the aid-rules-compliant provision of aid to KLU for the purposes of financing its marketing measures. Furthermore, the Commission did not sufficiently assess the market value of the services provided by the applicant and did not take them into account in the decision, even though the services in question were provided by the applicant at prices reflecting normal market conditions.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(3) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission, contrary to procedural requirements, applied a disproportionately strict standard, when assessing justification which does not correspond to its legal practice at the time when the marketing agreements were entered into.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(3) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission did not fully investigate the facts justifying the alleged aid. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded the aid-rules-compliant provision of aid to KLU for the purpose of justifying the aid provided to the applicant. Furthermore, the Commission failed to take into consideration, in its examination of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the significance of the marketing agreements in relation to regional and transport policy as well as the considerable positive effects for the regional economy connected with it.

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Kim and Others v Council

(Case T-742/17) (1)

(2018/C 301/62)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.