26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2018 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała, v Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski

(Case C-419/18)

(2018/C 427/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy Pragi-Południe w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała

Defendants: Bogumiła Włostowska, Mariusz Kurpiewski, Kamil Wójcik, Michał Konarzewski, Elżbieta Kondracka-Kłębecka, Monika Karwowska, Stanisław Kowalski, Anna Trusik, Adam Lizoń, Włodzimierz Lisowski

Questions referred

Do Article 3(1), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) including, in particular, Article 10, Article 14, Article 17(1) and Article 19, preclude a provision of national law which allows a claim of a creditor who is a seller or supplier against a borrower who is a consumer to be secured by a blank promissory note?

Should Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as imposing on the court hearing the case in proceedings referred to in the first question an obligation to examine of its own motion whether the provisions of the contract that creates the basic legal relationship underlying the promissory note obligation do not contain unfair contractual terms, even where the seller or supplier who is the applicant bases his claim exclusively on the legal relationship created by the promissory note?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2018 — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o. w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu

(Case C-437/18)

(2018/C 427/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o. w Sośnicowicach

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu

Question referred

Should the term ‘residence’ be interpreted in accordance with Article 1(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council and with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, or does the term ‘residence’ also mean temporary residence within the meaning of Article 1(k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2018 — GP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Baden-Württemberg West

(Case C-473/18)

(2018/C 427/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GP

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Baden-Württemberg West

Questions referred

1.	Which provision of Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 (1) is to be applied in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings for the purposes of a currency conversion of family benefits relating to children and taking the form of child allowance?

How is the applicable provision of that decision to be interpreted specifically for the purposes of determining the amount of differential child allowance, which is dependent on the exchange rate?

(a)	If Paragraph 2 of Decision No H3 is to be applied: within the meaning of that provision, which day is the day ‘when the operation is performed by the institution’?

(b)	If Paragraph 3(b) (where necessary, in combination with Paragraph 4) of Decision No H3 is to be applied: within the meaning of that provision, which month is the month ‘when the provision must be applied’?

(c)

If Paragraph 5 of Decision No H3 is to be applied: is the saving clause relating to national law compatible with the enabling provision in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009? (2) If yes: in order for it to be ‘provided for differently’ in national legislation, is legislation under a formal statute necessary or is an administrative instruction from the national administrative authorities sufficient?

Are there any special features to be taken into account specifically in the case of a currency conversion of Swiss child allowance by the German family allowance office?

(a)	When Decision No H3 is applied, in relation to Switzerland, is it significant that the German national rule in point 2 in sentence 1 of Paragraph 65(1) of the Einkommensteuergesetzes (Law on Income Tax) in itself lays down an exclusion from the payment of benefits?

(b)	Is the relevant date for the purposes of the currency conversion pursuant to Decision No H3 the date on which the Swiss institution granted or paid the family benefits?

(c)	Is the relevant date for the purposes of the currency conversion pursuant to Decision No H3 the date on which the German institution refused or granted the differential child allowance?

(1) Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the rates of conversion referred to in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 C 106, p. 56).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 July 2018 — KL and Others v UNIQUA Österreich Versicherungen and Others

(Case C-479/18)

(2018/C 427/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KL, LK, MJ, NI

Defendants: UNIQUA Österreich Versicherungen, DONAU Versicherung AG Vienna Insurance Group, Allianz Elementar Lebensversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft

Questions referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, (2) or Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) or Article 185(1), in conjunction with Article 186(1), of Directive 2009/138/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of incorrect information concerning the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the period for exercising the right of cancellation does not begin to run if the insurance undertaking specifies in the information that the right of cancellation must be exercised in written form, even though under national law it is possible to cancel in any form?

(If the first question is answered in the affirmative:)

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded, the period for exercising the right of cancellation begins to run at the point in time at which the policy-holder was informed — by whatever means — of his right of cancellation?

Must Article 35(1), in conjunction with Article 36(1), of Directive 2002/83/EC be interpreted as meaning that — in the absence of national rules on the effects of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded — the policy-holder’s right to cancel the contract expires at the latest after the surrender value has been paid out to him by reason of his having given notice to terminate the contract and thus the contracting parties have performed in full the obligations under the contract?

(If the first question is answered in the affirmative and/or the third question is answered in the negative:)

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, or Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, or Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which the surrender value (the current value for the insurance calculated in accordance with the accepted rules of actuarial calculations) must be reimbursed to the policy-holder if he exercises his right of cancellation?

(If the fourth question is to be dealt with and is answered in the affirmative:)

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, or Article 35(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC, or Article 186(1) of Directive 2009/138/EC be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of exercise of the right of cancellation, the claim to a flat rate of interest for the reimbursed premiums due to limitation may be restricted to the proportion covering the period of the last three years prior to the bringing of the action?

(1) Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(3) Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).

(4) Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała, v OH

(Case C-483/18)

(2018/C 427/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała

Respondent: OH

Question referred

Should Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) and (2), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, and Directive 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) in particular Article 22(3) thereof, be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 10, in conjunction with Article 17, of the ustawa z dnia 28 kwietnia 1936 r. prawo wekslowe (Law of 28 April 1936 on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes) according to which a court is not permitted to act of its own motion in a situation where it has a strong and justified belief, based on materials not originating from the parties to the case, that the contract giving rise to the basic legal relationship is at least partially invalid, and the applicant pursues his claim under a blank promissory note while the defendant raises no pleas and behaves passively?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2018 — DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle

(Case C-522/18)

(2018/C 427/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DŚ

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle

Questions referred

Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the irremovability of judges, forming part of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the principle of the rule of law, is infringed in the case where a national legislature lowers the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State (for example, from 70 to 65 years) and applies the new lower retirement age to judges in active service, without leaving the decision on whether to take advantage of the lower retirement age to the sole discretion of the judge concerned?

Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the rule of law and the standard of independence required to ensure effective judicial protection in cases involving EU law are infringed in the case where a national legislature, in breach of the principle of the irremovability of judges, lowers the normal age at which a judge of the court of last instance in a Member State may hold a judicial post from 70 to 65 years, such that continuance in that post is dependent on the discretionary consent of an executive body?

Should Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that lowering the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State, and making the possibility for an existing judge of that court who has reached the new lower retirement age to continue in his post dependent on the consent of an executive body, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

Should Article 2, Article 9 and Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 21 and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78/EC and Article 21 of the CFR and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law?

Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that the rule of law is to be regarded as such a fundamental value of the European Union that, where doubts arise as to the compatibility with that value and with the principle of effective judicial protection arising from it — as regards the independence of the courts and the judiciary — of national provisions which lower the retirement age of judges as described in Questions 1 and 2, a national court must have the power to suspend of its own motion the application of national provisions which infringe the principle of the irremovability of judges in relation to all judges coming within the scope of those provisions?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 August 2018 — GN, represented by the father HM v ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

(Case C-532/18)

(2018/C 427/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GN, represented by the father HM

Defendant: ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

Questions referred

Where a cup of hot coffee, which is located on the shelf of the seat in front of a person in an aircraft in flight, for unknown reasons slides and tips over, causing a passenger to suffer scalding, does this constitute an ‘accident’ triggering a carrier’s liability within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community on the basis of Article 300(2) EC and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001 (Montreal Convention, MC)?

(1) Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2018 — IL and Others v Land North Rhine-Westphalia

(Case C-535/18)

(2018/C 427/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IL, JK, KJ, LI, NG, MH, OF, PE, joint heirs of Ms QD (RC and SB), TA, UZ, VY, WX

Defendant: Land North Rhine-Westphalia

Questions referred

Must Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) — hereinafter referred to as: EIA Directive — be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law is consistent with it, according to which a claimant who is not recognised as an environmental association is entitled to apply for the annulment of a decision due to a procedural defect only if the procedural defect has denied the claimant itself the opportunity — as provided for by statute — of participating in the decision-making process?

(a)

Must Article 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (2) most recently amended by Article 1 of Directive 2014/101/EU of the Commission of 30 October 2014 (3) — hereinafter referred to as: Water Framework Directive (WFD) — be interpreted as meaning that it does not only include substantive criteria for examination but, in addition, specifications regarding the regulatory approval procedure?

(b)	If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative,

must the involvement of the public pursuant to Article 6 EIA Directive always relate to the documents regarding the assessment under water law in the aforementioned sense, or is it permissible to differentiate with regard to the time of the creation of the document and its complexity?

Must the term ‘deterioration of the status of a body of groundwater’ in Article 4(1)(b)(i) WFD be interpreted as meaning that a deterioration of the chemical status of a body of groundwater exists as soon as at least one environmental quality standard for one parameter is exceeded for project-related reasons and that irrespective of that, if the relevant threshold for one pollutant has already been exceeded, any additional (measurable) increase of the concentration constitutes a deterioration?

(a)

Taking into account its binding nature (Article 288 TFEU) and the guarantee of effective legal protection (Article 19 TEU), must Article 4 WFD be interpreted as meaning that all members of the public concerned by a project who assert that the approval of a project breaches their rights are also entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

(b)	If Question (a) is answered in the negative —

taking into account its objective — must Article 4 WFD be interpreted as meaning that at least such claimants who maintain domestic wells for their private water supply in geographical proximity to the planned road are entitled to bring judicial proceedings asserting breaches of the ban on the deterioration of water and the requirement for improvement?

(1) OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2014 L 311, p. 32.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV

(Case C-537/18)

(2018/C 427/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: YV

Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Question referred

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of final instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for suspension of execution of the contested measure, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint the judges adjudicating within it?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/12

Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council

(Case C-542/18 RX)

(2018/C 427/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

Applicant: Erik Simpson (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Questions to be reviewed

Whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council, affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/12

Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission

(Case C-543/18 RX)

(2018/C 427/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Questions to be reviewed

The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T 693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F 149/15, EU:F:2016:155), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2018 — FN and Others

(Case C-546/18)

(2018/C 427/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FN, GM, Adler Real Estate AG, HL, Petrus Advisers LLP

Defendant authority: Übernahmekommission

Questions referred

Do Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (1) — read in the light of the principle of effectiveness under EU law — preclude an interpretation according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is not given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against that same person, as a consequence of which that person once again has all the factual and legal pleas and evidence available to him to challenge the breach of law established in the decision that already has the force of res judicata?

Do Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids — read in the light of the principle of effectiveness under EU law — preclude an interpretation according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a legal person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is not given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against the body authorised to represent that legal person, as a consequence of which that legal person (the body) once again has all the factual and legal pleas and evidence available to it to challenge the breach of law established in the decision that already has the force of res judicata?

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against that same person, with the result that that person is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a legal person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against the body authorised to represent that legal person, with the result that that person (the body) is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?

(1) OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 August 2018 — K.N.K. v V.A.S., E.E.K.

(Case C-555/18)

(2018/C 427/20)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.N.K.

Debtors: V.A.S., E.E.K.

Questions referred

Is a payment order for a monetary claim under Article 410 of the Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code; GPK) which has not yet acquired the force of res judicata an authentic instrument within the meaning of Article 4(10) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014?

2.	If a payment order under Article 410 GPK is not an authentic instrument, must separate proceedings in accordance with Article 5(a) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 be initiated by application outside the proceedings under Article 410 GPK?

If a payment order under Article 410 GPK is an authentic instrument, must the court issue its decision within the period laid down in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 if a provision of national law states that periods are suspended during judicial vacations?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2014 L 189, p. 59).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others

(Case C-567/18)

(2018/C 427/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendants: Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l., Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l., Amazon EU S.a.r.l.

Question referred

Does a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without having knowledge of that infringement, stock those goods for the purpose of offering them or putting them on the market, if it is not that person himself but rather the third party alone which intends to offer the goods or put them on the market? (1)

(1) Interpretation of Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and interpretation of Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C GmbH & Co. KG v Z Tax Office

(Case C-573/18)

(2018/C 427/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: C GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Z Tax Office

Questions referred

Under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a producer organisation within the meaning of Article 11(1) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Regulation No 2200/96) (1) supplies goods to the producers that are its members and receives for this from the producers a payment which does not cover the purchase price,

is an exchange with an extra cash charge deemed to exist because the producers, in return for the supply, have contractually undertaken vis-a-vis the producer organisation to supply fruit and vegetables to the producer organisation for the duration of the earmarking period, with the consequence that the taxable amount of the supply is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers?

is the entirety of the amount which the operational fund actually pays to the producer organisation for the supply a ‘subsidy directly linked to the price of such supplies’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC), (2) with the consequence that the taxable amount also encompasses the financial assistance within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 2200/96 which has been granted to the operational fund on the basis of an operational programme?

If, on the basis of the answer to question 1, only the payments made by the producers, but not the supply obligation and the financial assistance, are to be taken as the taxable amount: under the circumstances specified in question 1, does Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC preclude a national special measure based on Article 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC such as Paragraph 10(5)(1) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax; ‘the UStG’), according to which the taxable amount of the supplies to the producers is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers because the producers are related parties?

3.	If question 2 is answered in the negative: is this also the case if the producers have a full right of deduction because the capital goods are subject to adjustments of deductions (Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC)?

(1) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C-eG v Z Tax Office

(Case C-574/18)

(2018/C 427/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: C-eG

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Z Tax Office

Questions referred

is an exchange with a cash supplement deemed to exist because the producers, in return for the supply, have contractually undertaken vis-a-vis the producer organisation to deliver fruit and vegetables to the producer organisation for the duration of the earmarking period, with the consequence that the taxable amount of the supply is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers?

3.	If the answer to question 2 is in the negative: is this also the case if the producers have a full right of deduction because the capital goods are subject to adjustments of deductions (Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC)?

(1) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 14 September 2018 — Energiavirasto

(Case C-578/18)

(2018/C 427/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Energiavirasto

Other parties: A, Caruna Oy

Questions referred

Is Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a person who is a consumer customer of a network company and who has brought a case concerning the network company before the national regulatory authority is to be regarded as an ‘affected party’ within the meaning of paragraph 17 of the article mentioned, which is affected by the decision of the regulatory authority and is therefore authorised to file an appeal at a national court against a decision affecting the network company made by the national regulatory authority?

If the person designated in the first question is not to be regarded as an ‘affected party’ within the meaning of Article 37 of Electricity Market Directive 2009/72/EC, does a consumer customer in a position like that of the appellant in the main proceedings have a right on any other legal basis under EU law to be involved before the regulatory authority in the treatment of a request made thereby for the introduction of a measure or to have the case reviewed by a national court, or is this question governed by national law?

(1) OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12

(Case C-579/18)

(2018/C 427/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and respondents: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

Defendants and appellants: QC, Comida paralela 12

Question referred

Does Article 79 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the EU Customs Code (1) preclude national legislation, such as that implemented by Article 266 of the General Law of 18 July 1977 on customs and excise duties, in the case of the unlawful importation into the customs territory of the European Union of goods subject to import duties, from making the person civilly liable for the person who has committed that offence — in which the person civilly liable did not participate — jointly and severally liable for the customs debt?

(1) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others

(Case C-581/18)

(2018/C 427/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: RB

Defendants and respondents: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD S.A.

Questions referred

1.	Is the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18(1) TFEU directed not only at the EU Member States and the Union institutions, but also at private parties (direct third-party effect of Article 18(1) TFEU)?

If the first question should be answered in the negative and Article 18(1) TFEU is not applicable to relations between private parties: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that this provision precludes restricting cover to cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories because the competent French authority, the Bureau central de tarification (central pricing office), did not object to the corresponding clause, even though that clause is contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU because it involves indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality?

If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that if, contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU, the insurer has only settled claims in cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories, it is prohibited from objecting that payment could not take place because the maximum cover amount was already reached, if the case of damage occurred outside of those territories?

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/19

Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by Viscas Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-422/14: Viscas v Commission

(Case C-582/18 P)

(2018/C 427/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in T-422/14, Viscas Corp. v Commission, in so far as it rejected the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as regards the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas and ordered Viscas to pay the costs;

—	annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final (1) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas at EUR 34 992 000;

—	set the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas by reason of the infringement established in Article 1 of that decision at EUR 19 595 520;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Viscas relies on a single plea in law alleging that the General Court’s judgment breaches the principle of equal treatment by upholding the methodology for determining the relevant value of sales, based on Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (2), applied by the Commission in the contested decision. This methodology provides a substantial discriminatory advantage to the producers involved in both the European cartel and the international cartel configurations of the infringement as compared to those involved only in the international configuration. The determination of the producers’ respective contribution to the infringement indeed takes no account of the European cartel configuration and thus considerably undervalues the weight in the infringement of the producers involved in both cartel configurations, in effect rewarding them for being involved in two cartels rather than one by imposing on them fines which are on average 44 % lower than if the infringement had been limited to the European cartel configuration.

(1) Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/20

Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-444/14: Furukawa Electric v Commission

(Case C-589/18 P)

(2018/C 427/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (represented by: C. Pouncey, A. Luke, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment in Case T-444/2014, Furukawa Electric v Commission, to the extent that it rejected: (i) the first part of Furukawa's fifth plea in law; and (ii) the third part of Furukawa's third plea in law; in relation to the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed on Furukawa and the order for Furukawa to pay the costs;

—	annul Article 2(n) of the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final (1) insofar as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Furukawa at EUR 8 858 000;

—	set the fine imposed on Furukawa in Article 2(n) of the Commission's decision at EUR 4 844 000;

—

in the event the Court sets aside the judgment in Case T-422/2014, Viscas v Commission, and reduces the fine imposed on Viscas under Article 2(p) of the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final, grant Furukawa an equivalent reduction in the amount of the fine for which it is jointly and severally liable in accordance with paragraph 291 of the General Court's judgment in Case T-444/2014; and

—	order the Commission to pay Furukawa's costs in these proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court's judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (2) in considering that the European Commission was entitled to take into account, when determining the relevant value of sales for the appellant for the period 18 February 1999 — 30 September 2001, sales made by Fujikura Ltd. given that no structural, organisational, or legal links existed between that entity and the appellant during this period. The appellant and Fujikura Ltd. did not form a single undertaking during this time period and it was therefore not legally correct to take such sales into account when calculating the value of sales for the appellant. The inclusion of such sales breached the principle of personal responsibility and led to an increase in the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant of over EUR 200 000.

Second, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the rules on equal treatment in considering that the Commission was entitled to apply Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines to all addressees of the Commission's decision in ‘Power Cables’ despite the fundamentally different situations of the parties. The European producers participated in a worldwide market sharing cartel as well as a European cartel, whereas the Japanese and Korean producers (including the appellant) participated in worldwide market sharing cartel only. In light of the breach of equal treatment that arises from the blanket application of Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines to all addressees which rewarded the European producers with a reduction to their respective values of sales (and hence their fines) of 44 %, and further to the Court's judgment in Case 580/12 P, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission, the appellant requests that the Court rectify the violation by granting a reduction in the fine imposed on the appellant of 44 %.

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/21

Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission

(Case C-590/18 P)

(2018/C 427/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it;

—

give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by:

—	annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and

—	reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120;

—	order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by validating the Commission's approach to apply Point 18 of its 2006 Guidelines (2) as if the entire infringement only covered the ‘worldwide part’ of the cartel and did not have an ‘intra-EEA part’ involving only the European suppliers.

As a result, the Commission determined the notional values of sales for the cartel participants in a way that significantly undervalued the role of the European suppliers and overvalued the role of the Asian suppliers, including Fujikura, in this infringement.

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/22

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Republic of Austria against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-356/15, Republic of Austria v European Commission

(Case C-594/18 P)

(2018/C 427/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Czech Republic, French Republic, Hungary, Republic of Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 in Case T-356/15, Republic of Austria v European Commission;

—	grant, in its entirety, the application at first instance for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station; (1)

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on five grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal, alleging that there is no objective in the common interest of the European Union

The judgment under appeal appears to be unlawful inasmuch as, contrary to the position adopted by the General Court, the construction of a new nuclear power station does not constitute an objective in the interest of the European Union; consequently the fourth plea in law, in conjunction with the fifth part of the ninth plea in law, in which it was claimed that the promotion of nuclear energy does not correspond to a common interest, which is necessary for approval of aid in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, should not have been rejected.

Second ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU

The aid measures were wrongly found to be compliant with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The judgment under appeal incorrectly defines the relevant economic area within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and wrongly omits to assess the failure of that market. The first plea in law and the first and second parts of the ninth plea in law, which related to the definition of the market and the market failure, should therefore not have been rejected.

Third ground of appeal, alleging insufficient assessment of proportionality

The judgment under appeal of the General Court wrongly endorsed the insufficient assessment of proportionality carried out by the European Commission. The European Commission’s considerations on the proportionality of the aid are neither correct nor comprehensible, with the result that the decision is invalid; in that respect, the sixth plea in law, the second complaint of the third part of the ninth plea in law and the sixth part of the ninth plea in law, by which, in essence, the insufficient nature of the review of the proportionality of the measures was pointed out, should not have been rejected.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging prohibited operating aid

The General Court failed to recognise that the measures envisaged in support of Hinkley Point C constitute prohibited operating aid. Consequently, the third plea in law and the first complaint of the third part of the ninth plea in law, in which it was claimed that the United Kingdom’s measures should be treated as equivalent to prohibited operating aid, ought not to have been rejected.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging insufficient determination of the aid elements and infringement of the Guarantee Notice

Lastly, the General Court, first, insufficiently determined the aid elements and, second, failed to take into account an infringement of the Guarantee Notice. In such circumstances, the fifth plea in law, the eighth plea in law and the fourth part of the ninth plea in law, which related to the inadequate determination of the aid elements and the infringement of the Guarantee Notice, should not have been rejected.

(1) OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/23

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by LS Cable & System Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-439/14: LS Cable & System v Commission

(Case C-596/18 P)

(2018/C 427/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LS Cable & System Ltd (represented by: S. Spinks, S. Kinsella, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the contested judgment;

—	rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision (1) in so far as it concerns appellant and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on appellant;

—	should the Court of Justice not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.	The contested judgment erred in law in manifestly distorting the clear sense of the evidence regarding appellant’s bids for EEA projects.

2.	The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant adhered to the home territory agreement resulting from its representative’s attendance at a meeting and that, therefore, the public distancing case-law applied to it.

3.	The contested judgment erred in law in holding that appellant could rebut the presumption of adherence to the home territory principle resulting from its representative’s attendance only by ‘publicly distancing’ itself at the meeting.

(1) Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/24

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-597/18 P)

(2018/C 427/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, I. Gurov, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group;

—	and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal of the Council seeks to set aside the parts of the contested judgment in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group and is based on the following grounds:

—	the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’;

—	the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties;

—

the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the admission of the plea of inadmissibility, submitted by the Council, would result in ‘the establishment, within the legal system of the European Union itself, of entities whose acts and conduct could not result in the European Union incurring liability’.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/25

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-598/18 P)

(2018/C 427/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, I. Gurov, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group;

—	and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

—	the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’;

—	the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties;

—

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/25

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-475/14: Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission

(Case C-601/18 P)

(2018/C 427/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Prysmian SpA, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo, L. Armati, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Pirelli & C. SpA

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal;

—	grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

—	order the Commission to bear the costs.

In the alternative the appellants respectfully request that the Court:

—	refer the case back to the General Court;

—	reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in finding that Article 20 of Regulation No. 1/2003 (1) does not prevent the Commission from taking the forensic images of entire hard drives of its employees without having examined their contents and from continuing their review at the Commission Brussels premises. The correct interpretation of the provision is that inspections can only be conducted at the undertaking’s premises and the Commission can only take copies of records of which it has examined the relevance. Given its interference with fundamental rights of the companies and their employees, a practice such as the taking of forensic images of entire hard drives should not be relegated to an explanatory note that grants full discretion to the Commission but should be governed by the law, in accordance with the principle of legality.

The General Court committed a breach of the principle of personal liability, legal certainty and the principle of equal treatment, in addition to infringing its duty to state reasons, by failing to consider that the attribution of liability to Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi based on economic continuity is an exception to the rule whereby liability follows the legal person managing the undertaking at the time of the infringement. As all exceptions, it is subject to strict application and can only be justified where the effectiveness of competition rules is at risk. Moreover, the General Court erred in ruling out discrimination in the present case on the grounds that there cannot be equality in illegality, as the attribution of liability based on economic continuity is a faculty granted to the Commission.

The General Court fails to address the Company’s main submission in the first instance that, any ‘home territory’ principle, assuming it existed — quod non -, could not credibly apply to all the disparate instances referred to in the decision and proving to the required legal standard the single and continuous infringement.

The General Court acted ultra petita and breached the Company’s rights of defence under Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 ECHR in its examination of the appellants’ seventh plea in first instance, relating to the start date of the cartel. The General Court manifestly misunderstood the evidence before it and applied an incorrect legal standard in its examination. Such a manifest distortion of the evidence resulted in it drawing erroneous inferences and reaching the mistaken legal conclusion that, on 18 February 1999, the Commission could establish the start date of an infringement affecting trade between Member States under Article 101 TFEU.

The General Court breached the principle of equal treatment in as far as it validated the assessment of the Commission that the allocation of projects among European producers in the context of the ‘European only — (R)’ configuration warranted a 2 % increase in the gravity factor (and, consequently, the ‘entry fee’) for the European manufacturers, whereas no such increase was applied to the Asian producers. It is not possible, on the one hand, to accept that the Commission Decision could find a single and continuous infringement based on a home territory rule consisting of interdependent configurations, and at the same time accept that the active involvement in one or the other justifies a different degree of gravity for the participants. Even if Asian producers were not actively involved in the alleged European allocation, they contributed to that allocation on a comparable degree as European producers.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/27

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-603/18 P)

(2018/C 427/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	quash the decision of the General Court;

—	grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

—	order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

(a)	finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

(b)	considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

(c)	holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

(d)	considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

(e)

finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.

The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors and/or shareholders in the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors and shareholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

(1) Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/28

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-604/18 P)

(2018/C 427/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Chrysostomides, Δικηγόρος)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	quash the decision of the General Court;

—	grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

—	order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

(a)	finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

(b)	considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

(c)	holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

(d)	considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

(e)

The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors, shareholders or bondholders in the Bank of Cyprus and/or Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors, shareholders or bondholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

(1) Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/29

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Nexans France, Nexans against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-449/14: Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case C-606/18 P)

(2018/C 427/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Nexans France, Nexans (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell, A. Rogers, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018 in Nexans France & Nexans v Commission (Case T-449/14, EU:T:2018:456);

—	refer the matter back to the General Court to decide on its action for the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it concerns the appellants;

—	reduce the fines imposed on the appellants by an amount that corresponds to a reduced gravity factor; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.	First, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) as regards the copying of unexamined electronic data, in that the copying of unexamined electronic data fell outside the Commission’s powers;

2.	Second, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2) of Regulation 1/2003 as regards the continued inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels, in that the Commission’s powers under that provision are limited to the premises of the undertakings in question;

3.	Third, an error of law in finding that the Commission did not exceed the terms of the inspection decision, in that the inspection decision should properly be understood as specifying that the inspection could only take place in all premises controlled by the appellants;

Fourth, an error of law as regards the lack of effects of the infringement, in that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, and itself reduce the gravity factor to take account of the fact that the majority of sales covered by the contested decision were in fact unaffected by the infringement; and

5.	Fifth, a manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning as regards the additional extra 2 % for the ‘European configuration’, in that no reasons were put forward why the European configuration caused additional distortion of competition in the EEA to the Europe-Asia configuration.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/30

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-447/14: NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

(Case C-607/18 P)

(2018/C 427/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (represented by: B. Creve, advocaat, M. Kofmann, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—	set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

—	annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part;

—	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

—	order a measure of organisation; and

—	order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: The General Court erroneously determined the territorial scope of the infringement.

Second plea: The General Court committed errors in law when assessing the scope of the SCI (2) and the scope of NKT’s participation in and awareness of the SCI.

Third plea: The General Court committed errors in law when holding that the appellants’ rights of defence had not been infringed.

Fourth plea: The General Court committed errors in law when rejecting the appellants’ plea for an annulment or reduction of the fine.

(1) Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2) Single and continuous infringement.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/30

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-619/18)

(2018/C 427/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by K. Banks, H. Krämer and S. Kaleda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that by lowering the retirement age of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and applying it to judges appointed to the Supreme Court before 3 April 2018, and by granting the President of the Republic of Poland discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

—	order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission claims that the provisions of the Law of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court (ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o Sądzie Najwyższym), lowering the retirement age of judges currently in office, appointed to the Supreme Court before the date of entry into force of that law (3 April 2018), infringes the principle of security of tenure of judges.

Second, the Commission maintains that the provisions of the Law on the Supreme Court, granting the President of the Republic of Poland discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges, infringes the principle of judicial independence.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/31

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-620/18)

(2018/C 427/40)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, M.M Tátrai and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; (1) in the alternative:

—	annul the provisions of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down point (c) and the third subparagraph of the new Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC;

—	annul the provisions of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council inserting paragraph 1a in Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC;

—	annul Article 1(2)(c) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	annul Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and in addition;

—	order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hungarian Government bases its action on five pleas in law:

In the first place, the Hungarian Government claims in its application that the contested directive was not adopted on the appropriate legal basis, in that, taking into account its purpose and its content, that directive — departing from the legislative authorisation that is laid down in respect of the freedom to provide services in Article 53(1) TFEU and Article 62 TFEU, which are referred to in the directive as the legal basis — applies only, or at least principally, to the protection of workers, meaning that the EU legislature should, for the purpose of adopting the directive, have taken Article 153 TFEU as the legal basis or, at least, as the principal legal basis (first plea in law).

In the second place, according to the Hungarian Government, the contested directive infringes Article 153(5) TFEU, which excludes the EU’s legislative power in relation to the regulation of pay in the context of employment relationships, as the EU legislature, in establishing that the remuneration of workers must be in accordance with the legislation in force in the Member State of posting, has adopted a rule which relates, in essence, to the remuneration of the employment relationship. The EU legislature selected the legal bases referred to in the contested directive because it saw that, in the absence of EU competence, that was the only way to regulate the issue of remuneration, which is one of the essential elements of that directive, and it thereby acted ultra vires (second plea in law).

In the third place, the Hungarian Government considers that the contested directive infringes Article 56 TFEU, which enshrines the freedom to provide services, since the obligations and restrictions imposed by that directive on undertakings established in a Member State which post workers to another Member State in the framework of the provision of services are discriminatory, unnecessary and disproportionate with regard to the objective they seek to achieve. In addition, the provisions in the contested directive concerning transport infringe Article 58(1) TFEU (third plea in law).

In the fourth place, the Hungarian Government considers that the contested directive is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, which enshrines the freedom to provide services, in that the directive excludes from its scope the effective exercise of that freedom inasmuch as it refers to the right to strike and other actions covered by specific industrial relations systems in the Member States and also in so far as it concerns the exercise of the right to negotiate, conclude and enforce collective agreements and to take collective action (fourth plea in law).

In the fifth place, the contested directive infringes Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, (2) and the principles of legal certainty and legislative clarity, in that it alters the application of Regulation No 593/2008 without amending the wording of that legislation, thus creating considerable legal uncertainty as to the correct application of the regulation. In addition the contested directive infringes the principles of legislative clarity and, consequently, of legal certainty because there is no definition of the concept of remuneration in the contested directive and because of uncertainties as to the interpretation of that concept (fifth plea in law).

(1) OJ 2018 L 173, p. 16.

(2) OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/32

Action brought on 5 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-628/18)

(2018/C 427/41)

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and B. Rous Demiri)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by not having adopted (all) of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, and with Directive (EU) 2016/1034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2016 amending Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments, or by not having notified the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2016/1034;

—	order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem penalty payment of EUR 7 224 from delivery of the judgment in the present case, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directives 2014/65/EU and 2016/1034/EU;

—	order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem lump sum of EUR 1 978 multiplied by the number of days for which the infringement has persisted, for a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 496 000; and

—	order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive 2016/1034/EU, the Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 3 July 2017, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the aforementioned directive and forthwith to communicate those provisions to the Commission. As the Republic of Slovenia did not, within that deadline, communicate to the Commission the measures transposing those directives, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.

By its action, the Commission claims that the Court should order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a lump sum and a per diem penalty payment.

The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 July 2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/33

Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-637/18)

(2018/C 427/42)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen y K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit value applicable to the concentration of PM10 in parts of Budapest (HU0001) and the valley of Sajó (HU0008) each year from 1 February 2005, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; (1)

—

declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit values applicable to the concentration of PM10 in the area of Pécs (HU0006) each year from 11 June 2011 — with the exception of 2014 — Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

—

declare that, from 11 June 2010, Hungary has failed to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe which provides, in particular, in the second paragraph of that article, that the exceedance period of those limit values should be kept as short as possible;

—	order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1 February 2005, the daily limit value of PM10 was exceeded in two air quality zones and, from 11 June 2011, in one additional zone. In spite of that infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50, Hungary, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, has not adopted any appropriate measures within the air quality plans so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible.

The ineffectiveness of the measures at issue is clear from, inter alia, the period of exceeding the limit values, the level and evolution of those limit values, and from the detailed examination of the air quality plans adopted by the Hungarian authorities.

(1) OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/34

Action brought on 13 October 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-644/18)

(2018/C 427/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

declare that, by having exceeded on a systematic and continuous basis PM10 concentration values, exceedance which is still ongoing,

(a)

as regards the daily limits:

—

as from 2008 in the following zones: IT1212 (Sacco Valley zone); IT1215 (agglomeration of Rome); IT1507 (former zone IT1501, ‘improvement zone’ — Naples and Caserta zone); IT0892 (Emilia Romagna, Western Plain); zone IT0893 (Emilia Romagna, Eastern Plain); IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan); IT0307 (agglomeration of Bergamo); IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia); IT0309 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation A); IT0310 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation B); IT0312 (Lombardy, valley D); IT0119 (Piedmont Plain); zone IT0120 (Piedmont High Ground);

—

As from 2009 in the following zones: IT0508 and IT0509 (former zone IT0501, agglomeration of Venice-Treviso); IT0510 (former zone IT0502, agglomeration of Padua); IT0511 (former zone IT0503, agglomeration of Vicenza), IT0512 (former zone IT0504, agglomeration of Verona); IT0513 and IT0514 (former zone IT0505; zone A1 — Veneto Province);

—

in zone IT0907 (Prato Pistoia zone) as from 2008 until 2013 and, again, as from 2015; in zones IT0909 (Valdarno Pisano and Lucca Plain zone) and IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin) as from 2008 until 2012 and, again, as from 2014; in zones IT1008 (Conca Ternana zone) and IT1508 (former zone IT1504, Benevento hilly coastal zone), as from 2008 until 2009 and, again, as from 2011; in zone IT1613 (Apulia — industrial zone), in 2008 and, again, as from 2011; in zone IT1911 (agglomeration of Palermo), as from 2008 until 2012, in 2014 and as from 2016, and

(b)

as regards the annual limits in the zones:

IT1212 (Sacco Valley) as from 2008 and without interruption at least until 2016; IT0508 and IT0509 (former zone IT0501, agglomeration of Venice-Treviso) in 2009, in 2011 and as from 2015; IT0511 (former zone IT0503, agglomeration of Vicenza), in 2011, in 2012 and as from 2015; IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan), IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia), IT0309 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation A) and IT0310 (Lombardy, plain B) as from 2008 until 2013 and as from 2015; IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin) as from 2008 until 2012 and as from 2015, the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligation under Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC; and

(2)

declare that, by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for PM10 in the zones referred to in paragraph 1 above, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, on its own and in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV to that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of the limit values therein indicated is as short as possible; and

(3)	order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Commission claims that the data collected regarding PM10 concentration in the air demonstrate systematic and continuous infringement of Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ [2008 L 152], p. 1). In accordance with those provisions, the level of concentration of those substances cannot exceed fixed daily and annual limits. In certain zones, those limits have been exceeded continuously for over ten years.

By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, on its own and in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV thereto. In the first place, the air quality plans, adopted following the exceedance of the limit values for PM10 concentration, do not make it possible to comply with those limit values or to limit the exceedance to the shortest period possible. In the second place, many of those plans do not contain the information required under Part A of Annex XV to the Directive, the provision of that information being mandatory under the third subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/36

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Daimler v Commission

(Case T-128/14) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC allowing a Member State to refuse registration of vehicles seriously jeopardising road safety or having a significant negative impact on the environment or on public health - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Aarhus Convention - Refusal to grant access to the file - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2018/C 427/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, B. Schirmer and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, then by G. Wilms and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, and finally by H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents, assisted initially by R. Van der Hout, then by R. Van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and A. Jensen, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2013) 3715941 of 13 December 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the procedure initiated by the French Republic pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls European Commission Decision ARES (2013) 3715941 of 13 December 2013 refusing to grant Daimler AG access to documents relating to the procedure initiated by the French Republic pursuant to Article 29 of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive);

2.	Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Daimler;

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

(1) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/37

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — EAEPC v Commission

(Case T-574/14) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Parallel trade in medicines - Agreement operating a distinction between prices charged for products intended for resale in Spain and prices charged for products intended for export to other Member States - Request for re-examination of a complaint following judgments of the Court of Justice and the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Rejection of a complaint - No Union interest - Cessation of the anti-competitive practice - Absence of persisting anti-competitive effects - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Article 105 TFEU - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Procedural rights of a complainant - Obligation to state reasons)

(2018/C 427/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Vollrath, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: GlaxoSmithKline plc (Brentford, United Kingdom) and GlaxoSmithKline SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially I.S. Forrester QC, and A. Komninos, lawyer, and subsequently A. Komninos)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant concerning an alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA of Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/38

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ezz and Others v Council

(Case T-288/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Admissibility - Objectives - Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted - Renewal of designation of the applicants on the list of persons targeted - Factual basis - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Proportionality - Right to fair trial - Presumption of innocence - Right to good administration - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2018/C 427/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented by: initially J. Lewis, B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, J. Binns, S. Rowe, Solicitors, and J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and subsequently B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, S. Rowe and H. de Charette, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), secondly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40) and, thirdly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 22), in that those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/39

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission

(Case T-43/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany - Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments - Acts against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur (Germany)) (represented by: J.O. Murach, lawyer, and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, (Munich, Germany), (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund, B. Herbers and K. Baubkus, lawyers

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision contained IN the letter of 19 November 2015 in relation to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

Orders 1&1 Telecom GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission in the context of the plea of inadmissibility rejected by the order of 22 June 2016, 1&1 Telecom v Commission (T-43/16, EU:T:2016:402).

(1) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/39

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

(Case T-62/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PUMA - Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, South Korea) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Puma SE;

3.	Orders Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/40

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)

(Case T-93/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VANGUARD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VANGUARD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2);

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/41

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-272/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Flat-rate financial corrections - Specific financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Flat-rate correction of 10 % - Flat-rate correction of 5 % - Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Multiannual measures - Long-term projects)

(2018/C 427/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou, A. Vasilopoulou, D. Ntourntoureka and E. Leftheriotou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, then D. Triantafyllou, J. Aquilina and K. Skelly, and lastly D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/41

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Paice v EUIPO — Blackmore (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-328/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation)

(2018/C 427/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Ian Paice to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/42

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-344/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation - Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Richard Hugh Blackmore to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/43

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-345/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - Goodwill - Breach of formal requirements - Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 880/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Richard Hugh Blackmore to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/43

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-463/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aids - Reductions and exclusions for failure to comply with the rules on cross compliance - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Proportionality)

(2018/C 427/54)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59) insofar as it relates to the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/44

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission

(Case T-546/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Adjustment of remuneration - Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Salary slip - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marina Tataram (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno initially, then F. Moyse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara initially, then G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga initially, then M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s remuneration in respect of May 2014, as given specific expression in the salary slip for that month sent to her on 15 May 2014, which is the first salary slip to apply Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ms Marina Tataram to pay the costs.

3.	Declares that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 1.6.2015 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/45

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB

(Case T-615/16) (1)

(Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Psychological harassment - Total and permanent disability - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PD (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, in essence, an order that the EIB compensate the applicant for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment at the hands of his line manager and the failure on the part of the EIB to take appropriate measures to address that situation and to protect his health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;

2.	Orders PD and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-45/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/45

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-682/16) (1)

(EAGF - Area-linked aid - Procedure for the suspension of monthly payments to a Member State - Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Key components of the national control system - Deficiencies found - Action plan including clear progress indicators established in consultation with the Commission - Proportionality)

(2018/C 427/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, D. Segoin, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 4287 final of 12 July 2016 suspending monthly payments to the French Republic under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

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

3.	Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/46

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Multiconnect v Commission

(Case T-884/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany - Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments - Measures against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multiconnect GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, inter alia, annulment of the purported decisions of the Commission contained in the emails of 11 and 29 October 2016 relating to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case COMP/M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland/E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and by Drillisch AG;

3.	Orders Multiconnect GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

4.	Orders Telefónica Deutschland Holding to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene;

5.	Orders Drillisch to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/47

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Mass Response Service v Commission

(Case T-885/16) (1)

(2018/C 427/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mass Response Service GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission contained in the emails of 24 and 29 October 2016 relating to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case COMP/M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action.

2.	Declares that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and Drillisch AG.

3.	Orders Mass Response Service GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4.	Orders Telefónica Deutschland Holding to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

5.	Orders Drillisch AG to bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/48

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE

(Case T-914/16) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Request for services that were split into two lots - Management consultancy services - Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

(2018/C 427/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: J. Stuyck, V. Ost and M.Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of EIGE’s decision, communicated to the applicant by the letter with reference EIGE/VL/mpD/2016/594 of 14 October 2016, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of both lots relating to invitation to tender EIGE/2016/OPER/01 entitled ‘Framework contract on maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ and awarding the framework contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in respect of loss of opportunity or loss of the contract itself.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Proof IT SIA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/48

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Mellifera v Commission

(Case T-12/17) (1)

(Consumer protection - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 - Implementing Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention)

(2018/C 427/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

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

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, rejecting the request for internal review based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 of 29 June 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 52).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/49

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament

(Case T-17/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Education - Admission to childcare facilities - Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled - Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility - Liability)

(2018/C 427/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) enrolling the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg II — Bertrange/Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s enrolment at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg I — Kirchberg, as well as the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/50

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)

(Case T-24/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark D-TACK - Earlier national word mark TACK - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Use under a different form - Opposition dismissed - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2018/C 427/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/50

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — TenneT Holding v EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)

(Case T-70/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NorthSeaGrid - Earlier EU word and figurative marks nationalgrid - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (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: Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Traub, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property and TenneT Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd and TenneT Holding BV;

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by TenneT Holding BV;

3.	Orders Ngrid Intellectual Property to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/51

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein and Sauga v ECB

(Case T-116/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents concerning the public debt and the budget deficit of an EU Member State - Refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the economic policy of the European Union and of a Member State)

(2018/C 427/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) and Michael Sauga (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Koreng and T. Feldmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and T. Filipova, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and L.E. Capiel, lawyers)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB, notified to the applicants by letter of 15 December 2016, rejecting their application for access to two documents concerning the public deficit and the public debt of the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG and Mr Michael Sauga to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/52

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v EUIPO (fluo.)

(Case T-120/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark fluo. - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M.d.M. Baldares and J. Ivanauskas, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign fluo. as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2);

2.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/52

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Asolo v EUIPO — Red Bull (FLÜGEL)

(Case T-150/17) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark FLÜGEL - Earlier national word marks …VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL - Relative grounds for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absence of likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the goods - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asolo LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: W. Pors and N. Dorenbosch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Capostagno, A. Folliard-Monguiral and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 282/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 November 2016 (Case R 282/2015-5), in so far as it dismisses the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the EU trade mark FLÜGEL invalid for the goods ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ and ‘alcoholic essences; alcoholic extracts; fruits extracts (alcoholic)’ in Class 33 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders EUIPO and Red Bull GmbH to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Asolo Ltd.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/53

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T-186/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wallapop - Prior national figurative mark wala w - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the services)

(2018/C 427/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Bernabeu, D. Gája and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wallpop, SL, (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and J. Sánchez Sánchez-Crespo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 2350/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Unipreus and Wallapop.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

4.	Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/54

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — M J Quinlan & Associates v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (Shape of a kangaroo)

(Case T-219/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a kangaroo - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use - Nature of use)

(2018/C 427/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: M J Quinlan & Associates Pty Ltd (Hope Island, Queensland, Australia) (represented by: M. Freiherr von Welser and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Lampel, J. Heidenreich and M. Pfaff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 January 2017 (Case R 218/2016-2) relating to revocation proceedings between M J Quinlan & Associates Pty and Intersnack Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders M J Quinlan & Associates Pty Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/55

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Wajos v EUIPO (Form of a container)

(Case T-313/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Form of a container - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a container as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1);

2.	Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/55

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)

(Case T-374/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 - Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/71)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, and subsequently by S. Ferrandis González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Crawcour and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1141/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between A. Salgado Nespereira and Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Dismisses the cross-claim;

3.	Orders Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

4.	Orders A. Salgado Nespereira, SA to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.

(1) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/56

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

(Case T-435/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/57

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T-448/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY - Earlier EU word mark SEVEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2291/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/57

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

(Case T-449/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY - Earlier EU word mark SEVEN - International registration designating the European Union - Earlier figurative mark 7SEVEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2292/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/58

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele'on)

(Case T-472/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Camele’on - Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 570/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilhelm Sihn jr. and in-edit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/59

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO)

(Case T-561/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark bags2GO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: L-Shop-Team GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: A. Sautter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Mensing and A. Söder, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 1650/2016-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign bags2GO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders L-Shop-Team GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/59

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Demp v EUIPO (Combination of the colours yellow and grey)

(Case T-595/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow and grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2017 (Case R 1624/2016-5), concerning an application for registration, as an EU trade mark, of a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours yellow and grey.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Demp BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/60

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission

(Case T-632/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)

(2018/C 427/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Éva Erdősi Galcsikné (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Éva Erdősi Galcsikné to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/60

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Sárossy v Commission

(Case T-633/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)

(2018/C 427/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 12 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Mr Róbert Sárossy to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3.	Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/61

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Pint v Commission

(Case T-634/17) (1)

(2018/C 427/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Anikó Pint to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/62

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)

(Case T-697/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by M. Arnott and A. Nicholls, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 (Case R 231/2017-1) concerning the application for registration of the word sign COOKING CHEF GOURMET as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/62

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories)

(Case T-712/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GN Laboratories - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, Arizona, United States of America)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 2358/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment Co. and C. Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Christos Ntolas to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/63

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT)

(Case T-736/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 (Case R 2225/2016-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign FLEXCUT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Lincoln Global, Inc., to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/64

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)

(Case T-820/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Alfrisa - Earlier EU figurative mark Frinsa F - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/84)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, S.A. (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, 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: Alimentos Friorizados, SA (Barberá del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: S. de Nadal Arce, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 (Case R 956/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste and Alimentos Friorizados.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Frinsa del Noroeste, S.A. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/64

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Carbon System Verwaltungs v EUIPO (LIGHTBOUNCE)

(Case T-825/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LIGHTBOUNCE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2018/C 427/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Gilch and L. Petri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2017 (Case R 2301/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTBOUNCE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/65

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v EUIPO — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)

(Case T-537/13) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2018/C 427/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, C. Straßberger and F. Römisch, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Springer, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2013 (Case R 1866/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roeckl Sporthandschuhe and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/66

Order of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — HS v EIB

(Case T-589/16)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Transfer of pension rights - Amount transferred - Non-contractual liability - Pre-litigation procedure - Conciliation procedure before the EIB - Reasonable period - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HS (represented by: A. Senes and L. Payot, then A. Senes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Nuvoli, P. Kijver and G. Faedo initially, then T. Gilliams, P. Kijver and G. Faedo, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application, on the basis of Article 270 TFEU, seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of errors committed by the EIB in the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights from the national pension scheme to the EIB pension scheme.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	HS shall pay the costs.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/66

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — RZ v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-192/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - [confidential] (2) - Action for annulment and damages - No act adversely affecting an official)

(2018/C 427/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers), Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet, M. Antonini and M. Esparrago Arzadun, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 essentially seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 11 May 2016 by which the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions [confidential], a joint service between the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic Social Committee (EESC), [confidential] and second, compensation for the harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	RZ is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

(2) Confidential information redacted.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/67

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case T-242/17) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Arbitration clause - Common foreign and security policy - Staff of EU international missions - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Internal competition - Impartiality of the selection board - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Partial reclassification of the action - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Material and non-material harm - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

(2018/C 427/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC (represented by: L. Moro and A. Kunst, lawyers)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for the internal competition organised by Eulex Kosovo in 2016 for the position of prosecutor (EK 30077) and of the decision of that mission not to renew her fixed-term contract, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the material and non-material harm that the applicant allegedly sustained as a result of the infringement by Eulex Kosovo of its non-contractual obligations and, thirdly, under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that Eulex Kosovo be ordered to pay compensation for breach of its contractual obligations

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	SC is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/68

Order of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — RE v Commission

(Case T-257/17) (1)

(Action for annulment and damages - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - No need to adjudicate - Explicit refusal of access - Modification of the form of order - Article 86(4)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of an implied decision of the European Commission rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant of 20 January 2017 for access to documents and decision C(2017) 3718 final of the Secretary General of the Commission of 24 May 2017, in so far as it refuses access to a note concerning the applicant’s recruitment, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the refusal of access to those documents and of the delay in examining the application for access to the said documents.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting the confirmatory application of RE of 20 January 2017 for access to documents.

2.	The action is dismissed for the remainder.

3.	Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/68

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

(Case T-421/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Document relating to a decision refusing a third party full access to trilogue tables relating to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA - Refusal to grant access - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exception for the protection of court proceedings - Disclosure after the action had been brought - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2018/C 427/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos, S. Alves and L. Anagnostopoulou)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A(2016) 15112 of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to Decision A(2015) 4931 of the Parliament of 8 July 2015 addressed to Mr Emilio De Capitani.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by Ms Päivi Leino-Sandberg.

2.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene lodged by the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.

3.	Each party shall bear its own costs, including those incurred in respect of the applications to intervene.

4.	The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall each bear their own costs. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to them.

(1) OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/69

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret v EUIPO (gratis)

(Joined Cases T-495/17 and T-496/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative marks gratis - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2018/C 427/92)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) authorised to replace Sedes Holding AȘ (represented by: K. Ongena and C. Du Jardin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 (Cases R 506/2017-2 and R 507/2017-2) concerning the applications for registration of the figurative signs gratis as EU trade marks.

Operative part of the order

1.	The actions are dismissed.

2.	Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret AȘ shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/70

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Activa Minoristas del Popular v ECB and SRB

(Case T-618/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - Action for annulment - Association set up after the adoption of the contested measure - Lack of direct concern - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2018/C 427/93)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Arredondo Díaz, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank (represented by: R. Ugena Torrejon and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents), Single Resolution Board (represented initially by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, L. Baudenbacher and S. Ianc, and subsequently by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Banco Santander, SA, Banco Popular Español, SA, the Kingdom of Spain, the European Commission and Chavela Inmuebles, SL.

3.	Activa Minoristas del Popular Asociación para la tutela de los inversores minoristas afectados por la resolución, supervisión y gestión del Banco Popular shall pay the costs with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.

4.	Banco Santander, Banco Popular Español, the Kingdom of Spain, the Commission and Chavela Inmuebles shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/71

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — eSlovensko v Commission

(Case T-664/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Subsidies - Finding of irregularities - Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty - Exclusion from procurement procedures and from the award of grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years - Registration in the early detection and exclusion system database - Challenge - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/94)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 June 2017, imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from procurement and grant award procedures financed from the general budget of the European Union for a period of 24 months and consequently registering it in the early detection and exclusion system database provided for in Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/71

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — OPS Újpest v Commission

(Case T-708/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/95)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions that the Commission allegedly adopted concerning the complaints SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/72

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — M-Sansz v Commission

(Case T-709/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘party concerned’ - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/96)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/73

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission

(Case T-710/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘party concerned’ - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/97)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) (Szombathely, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/73

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — Motex v Commission

(Case T-713/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - State Aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings which have employed persons with disabilities - Preliminary review procedure - Decisions allegedly taken by the Commission declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Concept of party concerned - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/98)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) (Esztergom-Kertváros, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions allegedly adopted by the Commission concerning the complaints SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers that is alleged to be illegal due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation, and SA.45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint by OPS Újpest-lift Kft concerning State aid provided to undertakings which employed disabled workers between 2006 and 2012.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dimissed.

2.	Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/74

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Hermann Biederlack v EUIPO (Feeling home)

(Case T-715/17) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Feeling home - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

(2018/C 427/99)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Biederlack (Greven, Germany) (represented by: T. Seifried, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 June 2017 (Case R 252/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Feeling home as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed.

2.	Hermann Biederlack GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/74

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Dreute v Parliament

(Case T-732/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Transfer - No longer further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate in part - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

(2018/C 427/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Dreute (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and R. Ignătescu, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 transferring the applicant within that institution, secondly, of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 20 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, if necessary, the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 12 July 2017 seconding the applicant, in the interest of the service, to the European Commission and, on the other hand, damages in respect of the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 12 July 2017.

2.	There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 and on the decision of 20 July 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Oliver Dreute against the latter.

3.	The claim for compensation is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

4.	Mr Dreute is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/75

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Estampaciones Rubí v Commission

(Case T-775/17) (1)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act - State aid - State aid - Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State - Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market - Implementation of the decision - Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients - Commission’s failure to adopt a position - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/101)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Estampaciones Rubí, SAU (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: D. Armesto Macías and K. Caminos García, lawyers)

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

Re:

Principally, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission contained in the documents of 4 December 2012 and 26 March 2013, entitled ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 — Informal message in response to the letter of 7 November (Álava)’ and ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 (Álava) — Informal message in response to the letters sent on 22 February and 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava)’ and, in the alternative, application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s request set out in its letter of 28 July 2017.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed in its entirety as inadmissible.

2.	Estampaciones Rubí, SAU shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/76

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and INEA

(Case T-815/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial assistance - Project of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks - Preliminary planning services for the new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line - Decision on eligible costs - Incorrect identification of the defendant - Not directly affected - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/102)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Korbel, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z.Malůšková, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of INEA’s letter of 11 October 2017 relating to the final financial statement of the eligibility of the sums claimed from the EU financial assistance granted to the project of common interest ‘Services relating to the preliminary planning of a new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line’.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.

3.	Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

4.	Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, the Commission, INEA, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs connected with the applications for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/77

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-819/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2016 appraisal - Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/103)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU requesting that the General Court order EUIPO to delete from the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2016 all criticism concerning the applicant’s communication style, inasmuch as it constitutes a misrepresentation and infringes the applicant’s fundamental right to express ideas and opinions freely.

Operative part of the order

1.	The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.	WH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/77

Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

(Case T-194/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2018/C 427/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2013 (Case R 949/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wessanen Benelux and Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International.

Operative part of the order

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

2.	Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/78

Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-506/18)

(2018/C 427/105)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 3826 final of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 421 755,79 and EUR 1 436 426,73 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) through the application of financial corrections on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law.

—

The Republic of Poland emphasises that the amounts excluded from European Union financing by virtue of the contested decision were spent in accordance with the provisions of EU legislation laying down the rules for implementing specific support for the tobacco sector, namely Regulation No 73/2009, (3) Regulation No 1120/2009 (4) and Regulation No 1122/2009. (5) The way in which that support was implemented by the Polish authorities was also in accordance with national legislation and the Programme communicated to the Commission of activities carried out in Poland in the context of the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation No 73/2009.

—

With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at producer level, the Republic of Poland states that there was no obligation, either under EU law or under national law, for producers to deliver all the tobacco produced to the initial processors. The Polish system of on-the-spot checks fully enabled the effective verification of whether all the eligibility conditions for support had been satisfied.

—

With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at the point of delivery, the Republic of Poland states that those checks fully ensured the verification of all the quality requirements to be met by the raw tobacco qualifying for support, including, in particular, the requirements concerning humidity and sand and dirt content.

—

With regard to the Commission’s complaint concerning the lack of a specific system of reductions and exclusions, the Republic of Poland states that the Polish system of penalties in the field of specific support for the tobacco sector was entirely in line with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 73/2009. In particular, that system was very restrictive and prevented any risk of loss to the Fund.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 through the application of a flat-rate correction at a level that was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial damage to the European Union budget.

The Republic of Poland takes the view that the flat-rate correction at a level of 5 % applied by the Commission is too high and exceeds the potential maximum loss that could be incurred by the Fund.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

In that regard, the Republic of Poland points to the contradictions arising from the pleadings submitted by the Commission in the course of the investigative proceedings, and also to the lack of justification provided by the Commission in respect of the complaint of infringement of some of the provisions of EU law relied on by that institution.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1).

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/79

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB

(Case T-514/18)

(2018/C 427/106)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

—

annul the final decision of the SRB Appeal Panel in Case 48/2017, dated 19 June 2018, insofar as the latter held that the Single Resolution Board (SRB) was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent; (ii) Article 4(2), first indent; (iii) Article 4(2), third indent; and/or (iv) Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1) (and/or the equivalent provisions under SRB Decision SRB/ES/2017/01 of 9 February 2017 on public access to SRB documents), in order to justify non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 23 August 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the SRB Appeal Panel has infringed the fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No. 1049/2001

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 11 of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/80

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — FAKRO v Commission

(Case T-515/18)

(2018/C 427/107)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: FAKRO sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the Commission of 14 June 2018, issued in the proceedings conducted as a result of the complaint submitted to the Commission by FAKRO sp. z o.o. on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX Group (Ref. AT.40026 VELUX);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, together with an insufficient statement of reasons for the contested decision, resulting in a finding that there is no EU interest in pursuing the case.

The applicant argues that the Commission did not take a definitive position either in relation to the prerequisites for a possibility of finding abuse of a dominant position or in relation to any of the seven categories of acts allegedly committed. In assessing the complaint that the dominant undertaking had applied predatory pricing, the Commission uncritically based its decision on the arguments put forward by that undertaking, disregarding the applicant’s arguments and failing to carry out even a cursory analysis of the issue. The applicant considers that the sole purpose of the launching of the fighting brand by the dominant undertaking was to make it impossible for its competitors to enter the market or to make development on that market impossible, and that the investment discounts applied by that undertaking are selective, exclusive and discriminatory, with the result that there is an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. The applicant argues that the evidence points clearly to the conclusion by the dominant undertaking of exclusivity agreements contrary to Article 102 TFEU, and that the conducting of investigative proceedings would not require substantial resources to be set aside for that purpose, but would require only verification of the information and evidence submitted by the applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration in connection with a manifest error of assessment regarding the lack of EU interest in continuing the proceedings.

More than 71 months elapsed between the submission of the complaint and the issuing of the decision rejecting that complaint. The Commission’s tardy handling of the matter is not justified by any special circumstances. The Commission has comprehensive knowledge on the subject of the European roof-window market. The slowness to act on the Commission’s part may result in a lack of opportunity for the applicant to assert its rights before the national competition authorities on account of the limitation period for claims laid down in national law.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) through the refusal to provide the applicant with access to the files, resulting in a denial to the applicant of effective rights of defence.

In accordance with the applicable rules, when the Commission informs a complainant of its intention to reject a complaint, the complainant has a right of access to the documents on which the Commission bases its provisional assessment. In the present case, the Commission did not provide the applicant with any such access. Furthermore, the Commission erred in law with regard to the principles for assessing EU interest by failing to carry out a proper assessment of the nature and effects of the acts allegedly committed by the dominant undertaking.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/81

Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Vialto Consulting v Commission

(Case T-537/18)

(2018/C 427/108)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Vialto Consulting (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul the Commission’s contested decision, whereby the Commission imposed on the applicant a two-year exclusion and published information on that exclusion on its website;

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 434 889,82, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

—

order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 400 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

—	order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the European Commission decision Ares (2018) 3463041, dated 29 June 2018, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.	The first plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996, as the European Commission assumes without justification that OLAF did not exceed its powers with respect to conduct of the inspection at the premises of Vialto.

2.	The second plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to the right to good administration and failure to state sufficient reasons.

3.	The third plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

The fourth plea in law is based on a breach of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state sufficient reasons, first, in that the European Commission imposed a two-year exclusion on Vialto, and, second, in that the Commission proceeded to publish information of that exclusion on its website.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/82

Action brought on 15 September 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission

(Case T-539/18)

(2018/C 427/109)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet (Quart de Poblet, Spain) (represented by: B. Sanchis Piqueras, J. Rodríguez Pellitero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	declare the action admissible and well founded;

—	declare that the applicant has correctly complied with its contractual obligations under the contracts;

—	find that, it is, therefore, entitled to the funding in accordance with those contracts;

—	declare that the European Commission’s claim for the repayment of certain amounts by the Diego Project and by the SEED Project is unfounded and inadmissible;

—	annul the debit notes or, in any event, declare them unlawful;

—	order the European Commission to repay the applicant the sums claimed which have been paid by the latter;

—	in the alternative, find, in the amount that it deems appropriate, the sums claimed by the Commission to be eligible and/or appropriate funding;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect classification of the costs by the European Commission.

—

The applicant claims that, by not respecting the terms of the contracts, the European Commission incorrectly classified the costs as direct or indirect and/or not chargeable, based on its auditors’ report, requiring the applicant to repay the funding received for the implementation of the DIEGO and SEED projects.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission incorrectly quantified the costs.

—	The applicant contests that quantification as being incorrect in that it does not respect the terms in that regard in the contracts.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with its contractual obligations.

—

According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to comply with the terms of the contracts by making an incorrect classification and quantification of the costs charged and continues to fail to comply, in spite of the arguments and evidence presented in the adversarial procedure, thereby demonstrating bad faith.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/83

Action brought on 11 September 2018 — YL v Commission

(Case T-545/18)

(2018/C 427/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YL (represented by: P. Yon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul his removal from the 2017 promotions list;

—	order his retroactive promotion as from 1 January 2017;

—

award him compensation for the damage — estimated in the amount of EUR 100 000 — suffered as a result of the contested measures: the number of days and amount of energy expended in respect of the present action and preparation thereof, overcoming the feeling of being rejected, ostracised and persecuted by an authority supposedly required to have regard to the welfare of its members of staff and have, if not a benevolent attitude towards them, then at least a neutral one;

—	order the reimbursement of his lawyer’s and legal fees in the amount of EUR 10 000, and

—	order the Commission to bear all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the appointing authority when it based its refusal to promote the applicant on a previously imposed penalty, when that penalty had already affected the applicant’s career by a relegation in step. Moreover, the contested decision was allegedly adopted on the ground that the penalty was related to the applicant’s conduct while on active duty, whereas the decision to impose a penalty of 2016 indicated that the acts in question were totally unconnected to the applicant’s duties and responsibilities.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging abuse of powers and process by the appointing authority when it used its power of promotion to increase the penalty imposed in 2016 and used the promotion procedure to circumvent the limits provided for in the Staff Regulations in the event of deferment of advancement.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/84

Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Teeäär v ECB

(Case T-547/18)

(2018/C 427/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 27 February 2018 by which the applicant’s application for support for transition to a career outside the ECB was rejected;

—	if need be, annul the decision of the Executive Board dated 3 July 2018 rejecting the special appeal directed by the applicant against the decision of the Executive Board of 27 February 2018;

—

grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he allegedly suffered consisting in the career transition support financial package, estimated at EUR 101 447, increased by late interest calculated at the main refinancing rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 percentage points per annum;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the ECB Staff Rules, in that this rule is said to infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality; the contested decision is, moreover, flawed by a manifest error of appreciation.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules in that this rule is said to discriminate based on age and thus contravene Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. (1)

3.	Third plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, that the contested decision is illegal due to a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, the infringement of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/85

Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Helbert v EUIPO

(Case T-548/18)

(2018/C 427/112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—	order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection board; and

—	order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

First plea in law, alleging that the composition and consistency of the Selection Board presented irregularities, directly resulting in a lack of coherence of the evaluation and a violation of the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment and objectivity of the evaluations, in breach of articles 3.1 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board did not undertake a comparative assessment of the candidate, in breach of the obligation to observe the principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and objectivity of the evaluation, according to art. 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance in the ‘specific competency-based interview’.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board infringed the Notice of Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 as well as principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and the objectivity of the evaluation.

(1) OJ 2017 C 9 A, p. 1

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/86

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Harrington Padrón/Council

(Case T-550/18)

(2018/C 427/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/86

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council

(Case T-551/18)

(2018/C 427/114)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/87

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council

(Case T-552/18)

(2018/C 427/115)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/88

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council

(Case T-553/18)

(2018/C 427/116)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/89

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Hernández Hernández/Council

(Case T-554/18)

(2018/C 427/117)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Socorro Elizabeth Hernández Hernández (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/90

Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)

(Case T-555/18)

(2018/C 427/118)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Raynham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Application for registration No 17 205 055

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 in Case R 463/2018-2

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.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/90

Action brought on 20 September 2018 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

(Case T-561/18)

(2018/C 427/119)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S (Padborg, Denmark) and Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Decision C(2018) 3169 final of 28 May 2018 in State aid case SA.47707 (2018/N) — State compensations granted to PostNord for the provision of the universal postal service — Denmark; (1)

—	order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the measures at issue. This plea based on two series of arguments relating to the length and circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure as well as to the content of the contested decision.

—

As regards the content of the contested decision, the applicants claim, in particular, that: (i) the universal service obligation compensation is not compatible with the internal market; (ii) the State guarantees do not constitute existing aid; (iii) the VAT exemption is imputable to the State; (iv) the misallocation of costs involves the transfer of State resources and is imputable to the State; and (v) the capital injection of 23 February 2017 is imputable to the State and confers an economic advantage on Post Danmark.

(1) OJ 2018 C 360, p. 3.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/91

Action brought on 24 September 2018 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission

(Case T-565/18)

(2018/C 427/120)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	order the defendant to pay EUR 216 749,02 to the applicant plus default interest accruing from the date of the service of process at a rate of 8 percentage points per annum above the basic interest rate set by the European Central Bank;

—

order the defendant to make available to the applicant the documents produced in the course of ECOCERT SA’s activities inspecting documents when it carried out an inspection of the products from organic production of Erenhot Jinguyuan Grain and Oil Co. Ltd., 2051 Youyi Road North, Erenhot City, Xilingol League, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, in particular the inspection reports and the associated evaluation letters from the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 relating to ECOCERT SA’s findings, assessments and decisions that formed the basis of the issuance of the certificate of inspection with the number 22904CN1700w13 of 19 September 2017, issued in accordance with Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1[2]35/2008, for 490 960 kg of organic sesame cake and of the subsequent annulment of that certificate of inspection by ECOCERT SA;

—

order the defendant:

additionally to require, in turn, that the supervisory authorities for products from organic production to which the defendant entrusts the tasks associated with the EU supervision of organic production in third countries send to the relevant importer named in Field 11 of the certificate of inspection issued in accordance with Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/20[0]8, (1) in particular the applicant, the decisions of those authorities regarding the annulment, revocation or declaration of invalidity of the certificates of inspection issued to the relevant importer, in particular the applicant, and deal with any related administrative appeals and take a decision thereon; and

additionally to urge the supervisory authorities for products from organic production authorised by the defendant in third countries to make available to importers, in particular the applicant, the documents relating to the organic inspection procedure forming the basis of such decisions, in particular the inspection reports and evaluation letters, with, however, redaction of the parts that are subject to data protection in favour of third parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims, inter alia, that the Commission has breached its obligation to monitor through suitable measures the activities of ECOCERT SA as a recognised supervising authority for products from organic production for the purposes of ensuring equivalence in China, and thereby to ensure satisfactory compliance with the conditions laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. (2)

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2008 L 334, p. 25).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2009 L 189, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/92

Action brought on 24 September 2018 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)

(Case T-568/18)

(2018/C 427/121)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Local-e-motion GmbH (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark WE with the colour indication ‘black, red and grey’ — Application for registration No 15 225 675

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 128/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/93

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission

(Case T-574/18)

(2018/C 427/122)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019; (1)

—	order the defendant to pay its own costs and to bear applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging violation of the administration’s obligation to give reasons pursuant to Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6(f) of or point 2.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and of the proportionality principle, in relation to the alleged data gaps concerning the active substance for which approval is sought.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging the erroneous application of the precautionary principle with regard to the said alleged data gaps/issues that could not be finalised for the purposes of the risk assessment.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 with regard to the identification of high risk with regard to aquatic organisms.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, 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 2018 L 183, p. 14).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/93

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)

(Case T-575/18)

(2018/C 427/123)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark The Inner Circle — International registration designating the European Union No 1 266 666

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 1402/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismisses the appeal of the applicant against the decision of the defendant's Opposition Division dated 26 April 2017, and thus upholds the IR holder's application for protection of the international trademark ‘The Inner Circle’ (No. 1 266 666) in the European Union for class 41;

—	order the IR holder and the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/94

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER)

(Case T-582/18)

(2018/C 427/124)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Boxer Barcelona, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XBOXER — Application for registration No 11 673 068

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2186/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

—	Insufficiency of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.

—	Absence of confusion as regards the similarity between the opposing marks and the mark applied for.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/95

Action brought on 26 September 2018 — Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen v Commission

(Case T-583/18)

(2018/C 427/125)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesamtverband Verkehrsgewerbe Niedersachsen e.V. (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 concerning the applicant’s aid complaint of 28 September 2016 — SA.46538 (2017/NN).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint in respect of the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46538 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).

The action is based on the following pleas in law:

1.	Failure to notify as an aid scheme (infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU) By the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG concerns a new aid scheme which ought to have been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.

Failure to notify as a general rule (infringement of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

By the second plea in law, the applicant submits that the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the NNVG constitutes an autonomous rule on financial compensation for public service obligations which establishes maximum tariffs for pupils, students, apprentices and persons with reduced mobility and which the Land of Lower Saxony intended should be excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1370/2007. Consequently, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG ought to have been notified to the Commission in accordance with the second sentence of Article 3(3) of that regulation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/96

Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Vins el Cep v EUIPO — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien (MIM NATURA)

(Case T-589/18)

(2018/C 427/126)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vins el Cep, SL (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: J. Vázquez Salleras and G. Ferrer Gonzalvez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Eltville, 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 MIM NATURA — Application for registration No 15 322 761

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2270/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	accept the application against the contested decision;

—	declare null and void the contested decision;

—	impose the costs of the proceedings to the EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/97

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament

(Case T-590/18)

(2018/C 427/127)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Leonidas Antonakopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision to suspend him from his duties;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle of sound administration inasmuch as the administration did not hear him before adopting the decision, even though it would have been possible to hold a hearing without damage to the interests of the investigation or the service.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons inasmuch as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is terse and vague and neither accompanied by reasons nor substantiated by precise information revealing the existence of adequate suspicions such as to lead to the conclusion that the applicant failed to honour his obligations under the Staff Regulations.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the administration could have adopted more lenient measures while satisfying the needs of the inquiry.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials inasmuch as, first, the administration failed to weigh up the interests of the applicant against those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has worked for the Parliament for almost 30 years, has excellent relations with his line managers and has had very good appraisal reports and, secondly, the fact that that decision was rapidly publicised undermines his personality and his reputation.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/97

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament

(Case T-591/18)

(2018/C 427/128)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision suspending her from her duties;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the administration did not hear her before the decision was adopted, although it would have been possible to hold a hearing without adversely affecting the interests of either the investigation or the service.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is incomplete, vague and neither justified nor supported by precise evidence showing that there was sufficient suspicion that might lead to the conclusion that the applicant breached her duties under the Staff Regulations.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the administration could have adopted less severe measures while meeting the needs of the investigation.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, in so far as the administration did not weigh up the applicant’s interests and those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has been working for the Parliament for 15 years, has an excellent relationship with her hierarchical superiors and has very good staff reports, and, moreover, the decision — which was publicised within a short time — adversely affects her person and her reputation.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/98

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission

(Case T-592/18)

(2018/C 427/129)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 23 November 2017 refusing her the benefit of the expatriation allowance;

—	order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as interpreted by the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C-424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), on the ground that the period during which she resided in Belgium during the reference period with diplomatic status is comparable to a circumstance ‘arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation’.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/99

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — BS (1) v Parliament

(Case T-593/18)

(2018/C 427/130)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BS (2) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the notice of amendment No. 15, dated 10 August 2017, concerning the applicant’s pension rights;

—	annul, so far as necessary, the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and EUR 4 815,16 as shown on the pension slip for December 2017;

—	order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union inasmuch as the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in so far as the defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and failed to observe the applicant’s right to be heard and his right to have access to his file.

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

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/99

Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Hermann Albers v Commission

(Case T-597/18)

(2018/C 427/131)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Albers e.K. (Neubörger, Germany) (represented by: S. Roling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 4385 final of 12 July 2018 relating to its aid complaint regarding the provision laid down in Paragraph 7a of the Niedersächsisches Nahverkehrsgesetz (Law of Lower Saxony relating to Local Transport; ‘the NNVG’) (Case SA. 46697 (2017/NN)) (OJ 2018 C 292, p. 2).

The action is based on a single plea, namely that, contrary to the view taken by the Commission, Paragraph 7a of the NNVG represents new aid which is subject to an obligation of notification.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/100

Action brought on 4 October 2018 — Grupo textil brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)

(Case T-598/18)

(2018/C 427/132)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo textil brownie, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J. C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Guide Association (London, United Kingdom)

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 word mark — Application for registration No 14 016 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2018 in Case R 2680/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision;

—	order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/101

Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB

(Case T-599/18)

(2018/C 427/133)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, P. Medina Sánchez and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the decision of 14 September 2018;

—	Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) of 14 September 2018 not to carry out an ex-post definitive valuation in the context of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning a resolution scheme in respect of the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. (‘the contested decision’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). That plea is divided into three parts.

—	First part, based on the argument that the contested decision determines the possibility to write back creditors’ claims or increase the value of the consideration paid without carrying out an ex-post definitive valuation.

—	Second part, based on the argument that the SRB did not verify that the information on which the valuation is based are as recent and complete as possible and, accordingly, any losses incurred on the assets of an entity may be fully taken into account.

—	Third part, based on infringement of the Meroni case-law in that the Commission should have given its consent to the SRB’s decision not to ensure that an ex-post definitive valuation is carried out.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power which vitiates the contested decision and which a body of objective, relevant and consistent evidence demonstrates. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the contested decision does not follow the procedure of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 referred to above and that SRB’s aim in adopting that decision is to hide the real situation of Banco Popular Español, S.A.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/102

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Wewi Mobile v EUIPO (Fi Network)

(Case T-601/18)

(2018/C 427/134)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Wewi Mobile, SL (Villena, Spain) (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, L. Montoya Terán and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Fi Network — Application for registration No 16 026 601

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1462/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision, save for the granting of the trade mark in respect of ‘magnets, magnetizers, demagnetizers’;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/102

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

(Case T-606/18)

(2018/C 427/135)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Felder, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreement 2012-3075/001-001 in the amount of EUR 22 454,22 made by letter of the defendant of 8 August 2018 under reference EACEA/A4/RR-am D (2018) 011591 have no basis;

—	order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 41 408,15 plus interest at the rate of 9 percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank as from 30 March 2018;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following pleas in law:

1.	Lack of full recognition of reimbursable costs notwithstanding the submission of supporting evidence.

2.	Lack of reasoning, or insufficient reasoning, for the refusal to recognise reimbursable costs.

26.11.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/105

Corrigendum to the communication to the Official Journal in Case C-457/18

( Official Journal of the European Union C 399 of 5 November 2018 )

(2018/C 427/141)

In the communication to the Official Journal in Case C-457/18 Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia, the text must be replaced with the following:

‘Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-457/18)

(2018/C 427/141)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: M. Menard)

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the defendant has infringed:

—	Article 2 TEU and Article 4(3) TEU;

—

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, together with Annex I thereto, configuring the European Union system for controlling, verifying and implementing the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy as established by Regulation No 1224/2009 and by Implementing Regulation No 404/2011;

—	Articles 4 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), read in conjunction with Article 13 thereof; and

—	Article 2(4) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.

The applicant also claims that the Court should:

—	order the defendant to put an end to the infringements mentioned above without delay; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises the following pleas in law.

First plea in law:

By unilaterally falling short of the commitment, which it made during the EU accession process, to comply with the arbitration award and thus with the boundary delimited by that award and the other obligations imposed thereby, the Republic of Croatia refuses to respect the rule of law, which is a fundamental value of the European Union (Article 2 TEU).

Second plea in law:

By unilaterally refusing to fulfil its obligations under the arbitration award, while at the same time preventing Slovenia from fully exercising its sovereignty over certain parts of its territory under the Treaties, the Republic of Croatia is in breach of its duty of sincere cooperation with the European Union and with the Republic of Slovenia as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. The Republic of Croatia’s conduct is jeopardising the attainment of the objectives of the European Union, namely peace-building and an ever closer union between nations, and the objectives of the Union rules relating to the territory of the Member States (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU). In addition, the Republic of Croatia is making it impossible for the Republic of Slovenia to implement EU law throughout its mainland and marine territory and to act in accordance with that law, and in particular in compliance with the secondary Union rules relating to the territory of the Member States (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU).

Third plea in law:

The Republic of Croatia is infringing Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, and in particular the mutual access regime laid down in Article 5 thereof and Annex I thereto. The regime, which applies to Croatia and Slovenia since 30 December 2017, grants 25 fishing vessels from each country free access to the other country’s territorial waters, as determined according to international law, that is, under the arbitration award. The Republic of Croatia is not permitting the Republic of Slovenia to exercise its rights under that regime and is thus infringing Article 5 of that regulation due to the fact that: (i) it is refusing to implement the mutual access regime; (ii) it is refusing to recognise the validity of the legislation adopted by the Republic of Slovenia for that purpose; and (iii) by systematically applying fines, it is denying Slovenian fishing vessels free access to the waters which the arbitration award of 2017 has defined as Slovenian, and, a fortiori, free access to Croatian waters falling within the scope of the mutual access regime.

Fourth plea in law:

The Republic of Croatia is infringing Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011. Croatian police patrol boats, without authorisation from the Republic of Slovenia, are accompanying Croatian fishing vessels when they fish in Slovenian waters, thereby preventing Slovenian fishing inspectors from carrying out controls. At the same time, the Croatian authorities are imposing fines on Slovenian fishing vessels for unlawful boundary crossing and illegal fishing when they fish in Slovenian waters which Croatia claims for itself. In addition, Croatia is not sending Slovenia any data regarding the activities of Croatian vessels in Slovenian waters, as is required by the two regulations referred to above. Thus, the Republic of Croatia is preventing the Republic of Slovenia from carrying out controls in waters under its sovereignty and jurisdiction and is not respecting Slovenia’s exclusive jurisdiction as a coastal State in its territorial waters, thereby infringing Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.

Fifth plea in law:

The Republic of Croatia has infringed and continues to infringe Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). Croatia does not recognise the boundary established by the arbitration award as a common boundary with Slovenia, is not cooperating with Slovenia to monitor that ‘external border’, and is not in a position to guarantee adequate surveillance of that border, thereby infringing Articles 13 and 17 of that regulation, and Article 4 thereof, which requires borders to be established in accordance with international law.

Sixth plea in law:

The Republic of Croatia has infringed and continues to infringe Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, which is to apply to the ‘marine waters’ of the Member States, as defined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) (Article 2(4) of the directive). The Republic of Croatia rejects the arbitration award which has established that delimitation of the boundaries and — on the contrary — includes Slovenian waters in its own maritime spatial planning: consequently, it does not allow for harmonisation with the geographical maps of the Republic of Slovenia, thereby infringing that directive, in particular Articles 8 and 11 thereof.’

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		( *1 )

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 61 26 November 2018

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2018/C 427/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1

	Corrigenda
2018/C 427/141	Corrigendum to the communication to the Official Journal in Case C-457/18 ( OJ C 399, 5.11.2018 )	105


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