8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/2

Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament

(Case C-462/18P)

(2018/C 364/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mylène Troszczynski (represented by F. Wagner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16;

and accordingly:

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, finding a debt amounting to EUR 56 554.00;

—

annul debit note No 2016-888, notified on 30 June 2016, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary-General of 23 June 2016, for ‘recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation’;

—

make an appropriate order as to the amount awarded to the applicant by way of compensation for non-material harm resulting from the unfounded accusations made before any investigation findings were issued, for the harm to her reputation, and for the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

—	make an appropriate order as to the amount awarded to the applicant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;

—	order the Parliament to pay the costs in full;

—	before ruling in the case: request the Parliament to submit J.O.’s administrative file and the OLAF dossier concerning him.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first plea in law alleges the error of law of infringement of essential procedural requirements. First, the General Court’s judgments in Bilde and Montel constitute new facts, arising after the closure of the written part of the procedure, which clarified the nature and quantity of the evidence to be provided. The conditions set out in Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure were met. Second, the Court erred in law in stating that it could not recognise any facts other than those submitted to the Secretary-General. The procedure for recovery of the sum unduly paid is similar to full legal proceedings, in which any documents relevant to the proper assessment of the dispute may be adduced, even in the course of the procedure.

The second plea in law alleges infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and of essential procedural requirements. First, the Court did not permit a fair debate in which both sides were heard since it did not require the Parliament to comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Parliament has the administrative file and OLAF file which it may benefit from as it wishes, since evidence of work may be contained in the two files but remain hidden from the applicant. Second, the Court made an error of assessment in considering the Secretary-General’s failure to grant the applicant a personal hearing to be proper conduct.

The third plea in law alleges an error of law, an error in classifying the legal nature of the facts and evidence, discrimination, fumus persecutionis, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and lawfulness and misuse of power. First, the lack of critical analysis of the evidence provided constitutes a failure to state reasons. Second, the political rights of assistants have been undermined. Third, concerning the recovery of the sum unduly paid, the risk of the consequences of the failure to provide proof is borne first by the administration which must give justified reasons for calling into question the sum obtained. Fourth, the treatment of the Members representing the Front national by the President and Secretary-General of the Parliament was discriminatory. Finally, the refusal to provide the administrative file and OLAF file calls into question the principle of legitimate expectations, lawfulness and constitutes misuse of power.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 July 2018 — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

(Case C-493/18)

(2018/C 364/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: UB

Respondents in cassation: VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

Questions referred

Does the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the court of the Member State which opened the insolvency proceedings seeking a declaration that mortgages registered over immovable property of the debtor located in another Member State and the sale of that immovable property in that State are ineffective as against the trustee, with a view to the restitution of those assets to the debtor’s estate, derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and is it closely linked to them?

If so, do the courts of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy or, on the contrary, do the courts of the Member State in which the immovable property is located alone have jurisdiction for that purpose, or is there concurrent jurisdiction between those various courts, and, if so, under what conditions?

Can the judgment by which the court of the Member State which opened the insolvency proceedings authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring, in another Member State, an action falling, in principle, within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the proceedings, have the effect of imposing the jurisdiction of that other State, in so far as, inter alia, that judgment could be classified as a judgment concerning the course of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 25(1) of Regulation [No 1346/2000] (1) which may, on that basis, be recognised with no further formalities, pursuant to that article?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 July 2018 — BT v Balgarska narodna banka

(Case C-501/18)

(2018/C 364/05)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendant: Balgarska narodna banka

Questions referred

Does it follow from the principles of EU law of equivalence and effectiveness that a national court is obliged to regard, of its own motion, an action as having been brought on the ground of a breach of an obligation arising from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) by a Member State if the action relates to the non-contractual liability of the Member State for losses arising from an infringement of EU law that were allegedly caused by an authority of a Member State, and

—	Article 4(3) TEU was not expressly specified as a legal basis in the application, but it is clear from the grounds for the action that the loss is asserted on the ground of an infringement of provisions of EU law;

—

the claim for damages was based on a national provision regarding State liability for losses that arise in the performance of administrative activity, and that liability is strict and was incurred under the following conditions: unlawfulness of a legal act, act or omission of an authority or official in the course of or in connection with the performance of administrative activity; material or non-material loss incurred; direct and immediate causal link between the loss and the unlawful conduct of the authority;

—	under the law of the Member State, the court must determine, of its own motion, the legal basis for State liability for the activity of the judicial authorities on the basis of the circumstances on which the action is based?

Does it follow from recital 27 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/201[0] (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) that, under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the recommendation issued on the basis of Article 17(3) of the regulation, in which an infringement of EU law by the central bank of a Member State in connection with the deadlines for paying out guaranteed deposits to the depositors in the respective credit institution has been established:

—

confers on the depositors at that credit institution the right to invoke the recommendation before a national court in order to substantiate an action for damages on the ground of that infringement of EU law, if account is taken of the European Banking Authority’s express power to establish infringements of EU law, and if it is considered that the depositors are not, and cannot be, the addressees of the recommendation and the latter does not establish any direct legal consequences for them;

—

is valid, having regard to the requirement that the infringed provision must provide for clear and unconditional obligations, if consideration is given to the fact that point (i) of Article 1(3) of Directive 94/19/EC (2) on deposit-guarantee schemes, if it is interpreted in conjunction with recitals 12 and 13 of that directive, does not contain all the elements required to establish a clear and unconditional obligation for the Member States and does not confer direct rights on depositors, and taking account of the fact that that directive provides for only minimum harmonisation that does not cover the indications by means of which unavailable deposits are determined, and that the recommendation has not been substantiated by other clear and unconditional provisions of EU law in relation to those indications, in particular the assessment of the lack of liquidity and the current lack of prospects of payout; an existing obligation to order early intervention measures and to maintain the business activity of the credit institution;

—

in view of the subject matter, the deposit guarantee, and the power of the European Banking Authority to issue recommendations on the deposit guarantee scheme pursuant to Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, is valid in relation to the national central bank, which has no connection with the national deposit guarantee scheme and is not a competent authority pursuant to point [iii] of Article 4(2) of that regulation?

Having regard also to the current state of the EU law relevant to the main proceedings, does it follow from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 October 2004, Paul and Others (C-222/02, EU:C:2004:606, paragraphs 38, 39, 43 and 49 to 51), of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame (C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 42 and 51), of 15 June 2000, Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission (C-237/98 P, EU:C:2000:321, paragraph 19), and of 2 December 1971, Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council (5/71, EU:C:1971:116 paragraph 11) that:

the provisions of Directive 94/19, particularly Article 7(6), confer on depositors the right to assert claims for compensation against a Member State for defective supervision regarding the credit institution that administers their deposits, and are those rights restricted to the guaranteed amount of the deposits or is the term ‘rights to compensation’ in that provision to be interpreted broadly?

the supervisory measures adopted by the central bank of a Member State to reorganise a credit institution, such as those in the main proceedings, including the suspension of payments, which are provided for, in particular, in the seventh indent of Article 2 of Directive 2001/24/EC (3), constitute an unjustified and unreasonable infringement of the depositors’ right to property that incurs liability for losses arising from an infringement of EU law if, having regard to Article 116(5) of the Law on credit institutions and Article 4(2)(1) and Article 94(1)(4) of the Law on bank insolvency, the law of the respective Member State provides that contractual interest is calculated for the duration of the measures and the claims that exceed the guaranteed amount of the deposits can be satisfied in general insolvency proceedings, and provides that interest can be paid?

the requirements provided for in the national law of a Member State for non-contractual liability for losses arising from an act or omission in connection with the exercise by a Member State’s central bank of the supervisory powers covered by the scope of application of Article 65(1)(b) TFEU must not run counter to the requirements and principles of that liability that apply under EU law, specifically: the principle according to which actions for damages are independent of actions for annulment and the established illegality of a requirement under national law that a legal act or an omission on the basis of which compensation is sought must be annulled beforehand; the illegality of a requirement under national law regarding the culpability of authorities or officials for whose conduct compensation is sought; the requirement in respect of actions for damages to compensate for material harm whereby the plaintiff must have suffered actual and certain damage at the time the action was brought?

on the basis of the principle of EU law according to which actions for damages are independent of actions for annulment, the requirement that the relevant conduct of the authority be unlawful must be met, which is equivalent to the requirement under the national law of the Member State according to which the legal act or the omission on the basis of which compensation is sought, namely the measures to reorganise a credit institution, must be annulled, if consideration is given to the circumstances of the main proceedings and it is considered that:

—

these measures are not directed at the applicant, which is a depositor at a credit institution, and that it is not entitled under national law and in accordance with the national case-law to apply for the annulment of the individual decisions by means of which these measures were ordered, and that those decisions have become final;

—	EU law, specifically Directive 2001/24 in this area, does not impose an express obligation on the Member States to provide for the possibility of challenging the supervisory measures for the benefit of all creditors in order to establish the validity of the measures;

—	the law of a Member State does not provide for non-contractual liability for losses incurred due to lawful conduct on the part of authorities or officials?

In the event of an interpretation to the effect that, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, the requirement that the respective conduct of the authority be unlawful is not applicable to actions of depositors at a credit institution for compensation due to acts and omissions of the central bank of a Member State and, in particular, for the payment of interest for guaranteed deposits not having been paid out within the deadline and for the payment of deposits exceeding the guaranteed amount, which are brought to seek compensation for an infringement of Articles 63 to 65 and 120 TFEU, Article 3 TEU and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are the requirements established by the Court of Justice of the European Union for non-contractual liability applicable to losses:

—

that arose due to lawful conduct on the part of an authority, specifically the three cumulative requirements, namely the existence of actual loss, a causal link between that loss and the act concerned, and the abnormal and special nature of the loss, particularly in the case of actions for the payment of interest for guaranteed deposits not being paid out within the deadline, or

—

in the domain of economic policy, particularly the requirement ‘only if there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of individuals’, particularly in actions of depositors for the payment of deposits exceeding the guaranteed amount, which are asserted as a loss and to which the procedure provided for by national law is applicable, if account is taken of the wide discretion enjoyed by the Member States in connection with Article 65(1)(b) TFEU and the measures under Directive 2001/24 and if the circumstances pertaining to the credit institution and the person seeking compensation relate to only one Member State but the same provisions and the constitutional principle of equality before the law apply to all depositors?

Does it follow from the interpretation of Article 10(1) in conjunction with point (i) of Article 1(3) and Article 7(6) of Directive 94/19 and the legal considerations in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016, Vervloet and Others (C-76/15, EU:C:2016:975, paragraphs 82 to 84), that the scope of application of the provisions of the directive cover depositors

—

whose deposits were not repayable on the basis of contracts and statutory provisions during the period running from the suspension of payments of the credit institution to the withdrawal of its authorisation for banking business, and the respective depositor has not expressed that he seeks repayment,

—

who have agreed to a clause that provides for the guaranteed amount of the deposits to be paid out in accordance with the procedure governed in the law of a Member State, and specifically after the withdrawal of the authorisation of the credit institution that manages the deposits, and that requirement has been met, and

—	the aforementioned clause of the deposit contract has the force of law between the contracting parties under the law of the Member State?

Does it follow from the provisions of that directive or from other provisions of EU law that the national court may not take such a clause in the deposit contract into consideration and may not examine the action of a depositor for the payment of interest due to failure to pay out the guaranteed amount of deposits within the deadline pursuant to that contract on the basis of the requirements for non-contractual liability for loss arising from an infringement of EU law and on the basis of Article 7(6) of Directive 94/19?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12).

(2) Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

(3) Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v OG

(Case C-508/18)

(2018/C 364/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: OG

Questions referred

1.	Is the independence from the executive of a public prosecutor to be decided in accordance with his position under the relevant national legal system? If not what are the criteria according to which independence from the executive is to be decided?

Is a public prosecutor who, in accordance with national law, is subject to a possible direction or instruction either directly or indirectly from a Ministry of Justice, sufficiently independent of the executive to be considered a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision (1)?

3.	If so, must the public prosecutor also be functionally independent of the executive and what are the criteria according to which functional independence is to be decided?

If independent of the executive, is a public prosecutor who is confined to initiating and conducting investigations and assuring that such investigations are conducted objectively and lawfully, the issuing of indictments, executing judicial decisions and conducting the prosecution of criminal offences, and does not issue national warrants and may not perform judicial functions a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision?

5.	Is the Public Prosecutor in Lübeck a judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States?

(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (Framework Decision) (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF

(Case C-509/18)

(2018/C 364/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: PF

Questions referred

Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) [of the Framework Decision (1)] is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?

2.	If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?

Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?

4.	Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/12

Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-375/18)

(2018/C 364/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan, notified on 20 March 2018, is unlawful;

—	annul that decision;

—	annul both implicit decisions rejecting the complaints submitted to the President of the European Parliament and the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 2 May 2018;

—	revoke the acts and measures adopted after the abovementioned acts;

—	award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 in compensation for the non-material harm he suffered as a result of his being excluded from the parliamentary visit and the failure to have regard to the compensation to which he was entitled;

—	also award him the amount of EUR 3 500 in compensation for the expenses incurred in preparing this action, and

—	order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law: infringement of the implementing provisions governing the work of delegations and missions of Members of the European Parliament outside the European Union.

2.	Second plea in law: breach of the right to an effective remedy and to good administration.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/13

Action brought on 3 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament

(Case T-401/18)

(2018/C 364/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — European Parliament Branch (SFIE-PE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare this action admissible and well-founded;

—

consequently:

—	annul the decision of 2 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters for 3 July 2018, as well as future decisions requisitioning interpreters for 4, 510 and 11 July 2018;

—	order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000, and

—	order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law: (i) breach of the right of collective action and right to information and consultation enshrined in Articles 28 and 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) and detailed and implemented by the framework agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or staff associations of the personnel of the institution, and (ii) infringement of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.

2.	Second plea in law: lack of competence of the author of the act and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

3.	Third plea in law: breach of the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/14

Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission

(Case T-422/18)

(2018/C 364/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 5 March 2018 granting access to documents included within the request for access to documents registered under reference GestDem 2017/7530 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

—	in any event, order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and Article 5(3)(b) and Article 5(6) of the section relating to provisions implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 of the Commission’s Code of Conduct annexed to the latter’s Rules of Procedures [C(2000) 3614 (JO 2000 L 308, p. 26)], in so far as the Commission could not communicate the documents at issue without informing the applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the principle of sound administration set out in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of its duty of due diligence as set out in the relevant case-law, and therefore, of the objective of Regulation No 1049/2001, according to Article 1(c) of which that regulation seeks to ‘promote good administrative practises on access to documents.’

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the first, second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to apply the exceptions which were nevertheless invoked by the applicant. This plea is divided into three parts:

—	first part, alleging that the Commission infringes the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it deliberately refused to apply the general presumption of confidentiality applicable to documents;

—	second part, alleging that the Commission infringes the second indent of Article 4(20 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to take into consideration the interference with judicial procedures which the communication of the documents effected;

—

third part, alleging that the Commission infringes the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 339 TFEU, in so far as it failed to take into consideration the applicant’s commercial, financial and strategic interests.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes Article 4(1)(b) and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1), in so far as it refused to conceal the identity of the individual who was the author of the documents at issue.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the requirement to state reasons imposed on it in accordance with Article 296 TFEU, in so far as it failed to inform the applicant, whether before or after the dispatch of the documents, of the reasons which could have justified its wish to dispatch those documents.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/15

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-437/18)

(2018/C 364/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the applicant’s action for damages relating to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ L 196/13 of 19 July 2013) to be admissible;

—	declare the Commission to be liable with respect to the applicant for the payment of the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000, including:

—	EUR 2 848 000 equivalent to uncollected refunds in relation to sales carried out between 19 July and 31 December 2013;

—	EUR 390 000 of refunds relating to losses stemming from the failure to achieve 3 550 tonnes of additional sales to PMOs over the course of the same period;

—	order the Commission to pay the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000;

—

reassessed by applying compensatory interest, starting from 20 September 2017 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the judgment, at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State where those companies are established;

—	increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, plus two percentage points;

—	authorise the applicant to amend its application and its claims in the event that the Commission adopts an implementing regulation replacing Regulation No 689/2013 before the end of the written phase of the proceedings in the present action;

—	order to the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law corresponding to the three basic conditions for an action for damages, which are cumulatively fulfilled in the present case, namely the existence of a harmful event corresponding to the unlawfulness of the conduct complained of, of damage and of a causal link between the harmful event and the damage.

Firstly, the applicant considers that the adoption by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13), annulled by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (C-183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704), constitutes a sufficient infringement of EU law to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious infringement.

Secondly, it considers that the Commission, by unlawfully adopting a measure writing down the amount of the refunds on the sales of frozen chickens in certain countries outside the EU, committed a sufficiently serious infringement constituting a harmful event which resulted in actual and certain damage to it. That damage consists, according to the applicant, in the fact that it did not benefit from refunds until 31 December 2013.

Thirdly, the applicant company claims that it is justified in requesting compensation for the loss suffered relating to the unlawful cancellation of the refunds between 19 July 2013 and 31 December 2013. The Commission’s wrongful conduct was thus the decisive cause of the damage which it allegedly suffered and therefore, there is a direct and immediate link between that wrongful conduct and that damage.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/17

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original)

(Case T-459/18)

(2018/C 364/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Lotte (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: G. Ringeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Générale Biscuit-Glico France (Clamart, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark PEPERO original in colours red, brown, yellow, white

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2018 in Case R 913/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible;

—	annul the contested decision to the extent that it cancelled European Union trade mark No 7 413 651 of the company LOTTE and ordered it to reimburse the fees and costs of the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France;

—	order EUIPO and the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France to reimburse the company LOTTE the representation expenses in each of the proceedings;

—	order EUIPO and the company Générale Biscuit-Glico France to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—	Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 8(5) thereof;

—	Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/17

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission

(Case T-470/18)

(2018/C 364/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telenet (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested act in its entirety; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2018) 3410 final of 25 May 2018, adopted in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), concerning case BE/2018/2073: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location in Belgium, case BE/2018/2074: Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products in Belgium and case BE/2018/2075: Wholesale TV broadcasting in Belgium.

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC and abused its discretion by not opening a Phase II investigation.

—	In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission expressed multiple concerns with the market definition of the Belgian national regulatory authority.

—	The applicant further claims that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission must initiate a Phase II review in case it has serious doubts with a proposed regulatory measure.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its finding that the chosen market definition does not change the regulatory outcome.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law where it considered that it could decide not to open a Phase II investigation on the ground that the market definition which the Commission considered more appropriate would allegedly lead to the same regulatory outcome as the one being proposed in the draft measure. The appropriate market definitions would necessarily have altered the legal position of the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural safeguards of Directive 2002/21/EC.

—	In this regard, the applicant puts forward that the draft measure that the Belgian national regulatory authority submitted to the Commission contained a market definition that had not been subjected to a public consultation, as required by Articles 6 and 16(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC.

—	The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed procedural requirements by commenting on a proposal that had not been subjected to a public consultation.

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

8.10.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/18

Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-471/18)

(2018/C 364/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 27 November 2017, reference ‘eeas.ba.hr.3(2017)6459331’, delivered by [confidential] (1) imposing on the applicant a salary deduction in the amount of 72 calendar days;

—	annul, in so far as necessary, the explicit rejection decision of 2 May 2018 (‘eeas.ba.hr.3/ED/ld(2018)2309062’) following the applicant’s complaint of 3 January 2018;

—

decide that the sums that must be reimbursed to the applicant following that annulment are to be increased by default interest calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum or a different rate to be set by the Court, calculated on the day on which actual recovery takes place and according to the dates of the various deductions made;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 1e(2), 12, 12a, 21, 25, 26, 55 and 60 of the Staff Regulations, of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). She also invokes infringement of, inter alia, Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the right to a fair hearing, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and abuse of rights and abuse of process, as well as a flagrant breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. Lastly, the applicant claims infringement of the principle which requires the authorities to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law, as well as infringement of the principles of proportionality, audi alteram partem and legal certainty, in addition to infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(1) Confidential data omitted.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 364

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 61 8 October 2018

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2018/C 364/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2018/C 364/02	Case C-428/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social	2
2018/C 364/03	Case C-462/18P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament	2
2018/C 364/04	Case C-493/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 July 2018 — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA	4
2018/C 364/05	Case C-501/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 July 2018 — BT v Balgarska narodna banka	4
2018/C 364/06	Case C-505/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 July 2018 — COPEBI SCA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)	7
2018/C 364/07	Case C-508/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v OG	8
2018/C 364/08	Case C-509/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF	8
2018/C 364/09	Case C-517/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Fédération des fabricants de cigares v Premier ministre, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé	9
	General Court
2018/C 364/10	Case T-646/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Simpson v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Upgrade — Classification in grade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Dismissal of the action at first instance after referral back by the General Court — Composition of the panel of judges which adopted the order at first instance — Procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal — Tribunal established by law — Principle of the right to a judge assigned by law)	11
2018/C 364/11	Case T-693/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — HG v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Posting to a third country — Lodging provided by the administration — Disciplinary penalty — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Composition of the panel of judges which delivered the judgment at first instance — Procedure for appointment of a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal — Tribunal established by law — Principle of the lawful judge)	11
2018/C 364/12	Case T-375/18: Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament	12
2018/C 364/13	Case T-401/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament	13
2018/C 364/14	Case T-402/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament	14
2018/C 364/15	Case T-422/18: Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission	14
2018/C 364/16	Case T-437/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission	15
2018/C 364/17	Case T-459/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original)	17
2018/C 364/18	Case T-470/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission	17
2018/C 364/19	Case T-471/18: Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS	18
2018/C 364/20	Case T-482/18: Action brought on 10 August 2018 — XF v Commission	19
2018/C 364/21	Case T-501/18: Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkiarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)	20