2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/3

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2019/C 406/08)

At its General Meeting on 8 October 2019, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 27(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

Mr Juhász

Mr Wahl

Mr Ilešič

Mr Jääskinen

Mr Malenovský

Mr Kumin

Mr Bay Larsen

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr von Danwitz

Ms Rossi

Ms Toader

Mr Piçarra

Mr Safjan

Mr Xuereb

Mr Šváby

Mr Lycourgos

Mr Vajda

Ms Jürimäe

Mr Rodin

Mr Biltgen

At its General Meeting on 8 October 2019, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the First and the Third Chambers as follows:

First Chamber:

Mr Bonichot

Mr Bay Larsen

Mr Jääskinen

Ms Toader

Mr Safjan

Third Chamber:

Ms Prechal

Mr Malenovský

Mr Wahl

Mr Biltgen

Ms Rossi

At its General Meeting on 8 October 2019, the Court drew up, in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber:

Mr Safjan

Mr Bay Larsen

Ms Toader

Mr Jääskinen

Seventh Chamber:

Mr Xuereb

Mr von Danwitz

Mr Vajda

Mr Kumin

Eighth Chamber:

Ms Rossi

Mr Malenovský

Mr Biltgen

Mr Wahl

Ninth Chamber:

Mr Rodin

Mr Šváby

Ms Jürimäe

Mr Piçarra

Tenth Chamber:

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr Juhász

Mr Ilešič

Mr Lycourgos

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/6

Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court

(2019/C 406/09)

Following her appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 February 2019, (1) Ms Stancu took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 February 2019, 1 Mr Truchot took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following her appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 6 March 2019, (2) Ms Pynnä took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 29 May 2019, Mr Laitenberger, Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Mr Norkus, Ms Perišin, Mr Sampol Pucurull, Ms Škvařilová-Pelzl and Ms Steinfatt took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 29 May 2019, (3)Mr Nõmm took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2025 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 10 July 2019, (4) Mr Mastroianni and Ms Porchia took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

Following his appointment as Judge at the General Court for the period from 6 September 2019 to 31 August 2022 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 4 September 2019, (5) Mr Hesse took the oath before the Court of Justice on 26 September 2019.

(1) OJ L 32, 4.2.2019, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 69, 11.3.2019, p. 51.

(3) OJ L 146, 5.6.2019, p. 104.

(4) OJ L 189, 15.7.2019, p. 69.

(5) OJ L 230, 6.9.2019, p. 2.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2019 — Academia de Studii Economice din București v Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operațional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educației Naționale

(Case C-585/19)

(2019/C 406/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Academia de Studii Economice din București

Defendant: Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operațional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educației Naționale

Questions referred

Should ‘working time’, as defined in Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) be understood as meaning ‘any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties’ under a single (full-time) contract or under all (employment) contracts concluded by that worker?

Should the requirements imposed on Member States by Article 3 of Directive 2003/88/EC (obligation to take the measures necessary to ensure that each worker enjoys at least 11 consecutive hours’ rest per 24-hour period) and by Article 6(b) of that directive (establishing a maximum weekly working time limit of 48 hours, on average, including overtime) be interpreted as introducing limits with regard to one single contract or with regard to all the contracts concluded with the same employer or with different employers?

In the event that the answers to Questions 1 and 2 involve an interpretation which is such as to exclude the possibility of the Member States being able to regulate, at national level, the application per contract of Article 3 and Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC, where there are no provisions of national legislation governing the fact that the minimum daily rest and the maximum weekly working time are to relate to the worker (regardless of how many employment contracts are concluded with the same employer or with different employers), is a public institution of a Member State, which acts on behalf of the State, in a position to rely on the direct application of Article 3 and Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC and to penalise the employer for failure to observe the limits laid down by that directive as regards daily rest and/or the maximum weekly working time?

(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2019 — Land Baden-Württemberg v D.R.

(Case C-619/19)

(2019/C 406/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant: D.R.

Questions referred

Is point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (the Environmental Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘internal communications’ covers all communications which do not leave the internal sphere of an authority which is required to provide information?

2.	Is the temporal scope of the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive unlimited?

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the protection of ‘internal communications’ under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Environmental Information Directive apply only until the authority required to provide information has taken a decision or completed any other administrative process?

(1) OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (Spain) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi v Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga

(Case C-635/19)

(2019/C 406/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga

Question referred

Does Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude national legislation, such as Article 122(2) of the LCSP, (2) which compels contracting authorities to include in the procurement documents governing a public contract a special condition of performance imposing on the successful tenderer an obligation to guarantee that the pay conditions applicable to workers under the relevant sectoral collective agreement will at least be honoured, even if that sectoral collective agreement is not binding on the undertaking to which the contract is awarded under the rules governing collective bargaining and collective agreements, which establish the primacy of the company agreement on pay and provide for the possibility of not applying a collective agreement in force for economic, technical, organisational or production reasons?

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

(2) Law 9/2017 of 8 November 2017 on Public Sector Contracts.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 28 August 2019 — FT v Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale

(Case C-644/19)

(2019/C 406/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FT

Respondents: Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale

Questions referred

Are Article 1, Article 2(2)(b) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, where it enables an employer to decide that individuals who have reached the age of 65 may continue to perform their duties as tenured members of staff and retain the rights which they enjoyed prior to retirement only if they have doctoral supervisor status, thereby placing at a disadvantage other individuals in a similar situation who may do the same only if there are vacant posts and they meet certain requirements relating to professional performance, and to require individuals who do not have doctoral supervisor status to perform similar academic duties under successive fixed-term employment contracts under which they receive remuneration on an ‘hourly basis’ at a level below that paid to tenured members of a university’s staff?

Can the precedence in the application of EU law (the principle of the primacy of EU law) be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a final ruling of another national court in which it has been held that, in the factual situation described, Directive 2000/78/EC has been complied with and there has been no discrimination?

(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).

(2) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 August 2019 — Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit

(Case C-645/19)

(2019/C 406/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA

Defendant: Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit

Questions referred

Should Articles [55(1)], 56 to 58 and 60 to 66 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a supervisory authority which, pursuant to national law adopted in implementation of Article [58(5)] of that regulation, has the power to commence legal proceedings before a court in its Member State against infringements of that regulation cannot exercise that power in connection with cross-border processing if it is not the lead supervisory authority for that cross-border processing?

2.	Does it make a difference if the controller of that cross-border processing does not have its main establishment in that Member State but does have another establishment there?

3.	Does it make a difference whether the national supervisory authority commences the legal proceedings against the controller’s main establishment or against the establishment in its own Member State?

4.	Does it make a difference if the national supervisory authority had already commenced the legal proceedings before the date on which the regulation entered into force (25 May 2018)?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Article [58(5)] of the GDPR have direct effect, such that a national supervisory authority can rely on the aforementioned article to commence or continue legal proceedings against private parties even if Article [58(5)] of the GDPR has not been specifically transposed into the legislation of the Member States, notwithstanding the requirement to do so?

If the previous questions are answered in the affirmative, could the outcome of such proceedings prevent the lead supervisory authority from reaching a conclusion to the contrary, in the event that the lead supervisory authority investigates the same or similar cross-border processing activities in accordance with the mechanism laid down in Articles 56 and 60 of the GDPR?

(1) OJ 2016, L 119, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 3 September 2019 — FP Passenger Service v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-654/19)

(2019/C 406/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FP Passenger Service

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Are Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating a delay — having regard to the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-452/13, according to which account is to be taken of the time of the door opening — it is necessary to establish the difference between the actual time of the door opening and the scheduled time of arrival, or the difference between the actual time of the door opening and the time at which it is expected that the door would be opened if the time of arrival was as scheduled?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2019 —Tax Office D v E

(Case C-657/19)

(2019/C 406/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tax Office D

Defendant: E

Questions referred

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does the preparation by a taxable person of expert reports on the care and support needs of patients for the Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung (Health Insurance Medical Service) fall within the scope of Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (Directive 2006/112/EC)?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

(a)

In order for an undertaking to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC, is it sufficient if, as a subcontractor, it supplies services to a body recognised under national law as a body devoted to social wellbeing within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC?

(b)

If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient that the expense incurred by the recognised body within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC is borne entirely by the Health Insurance and Care and Support Insurance Funds in order for a subcontractor of that recognised body also to be regarded as a recognised body?

(c)

If Questions 2(a) and 2(b) are answered in the negative: In order for a taxable person to be recognised as a body devoted to social wellbeing, may a Member State subject such recognition to the condition that the taxable person has actually entered into a contract with a social security or social welfare authority, or is it sufficient if a contract with that taxable person could be entered into under national law?

(1) OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2019 — flightright GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-661/19)

(2019/C 406/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Should the second sentence of Article 7(1), read in conjunction with Article 7(4), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights, without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, only the distance of the second leg of the journey is relevant for the amount of the entitlement to compensation, where the claim is brought against the air carrier operating the second leg of the journey upon which an irregularity has occurred, and the transport on the first leg of the journey was operated by a different air carrier?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 September 2019 — A.M. v E.M.

(Case C-667/19)

(2019/C 406/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.M.

Defendant: E.M.

Questions referred

In so far as it provides that the container and packaging of cosmetic products should bear in indelible, easily legible and visible lettering information as to the function of the cosmetic product, unless it is clear from its presentation, should Article 19(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as referring to the essential functions of cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Regulation, that is, cleaning (keeping clean), nurturing and protecting (keeping in good condition), perfuming and beautifying (changing appearance), or should more detailed functions be stated, enabling the properties of the cosmetic product in question to be determined?

Should Article 19(2) and recital 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in Article 19(1)(d), (g) and (f), namely, precautions, ingredients and functions, may be stated in a company’s catalogue which also includes other products, by placing the symbol set out in point 1 of Annex VII on the packaging?

(1) OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 September 2019 — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-695/19)

(2019/C 406/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Do transactions involving intermediation in the sale of extended warranties on household electrical appliances, which are carried out by a taxable person under VAT law whose principal activity consists in the sale of household electrical appliances to consumers, constitute financial transactions, or are they to be treated as such pursuant to the principles of neutrality and non-distortion of competition, for the purposes of exclusion of the amount represented by them from the calculation of the deductible proportion, in accordance with Article 135(1)(b) and/or (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006? (1)

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

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/16

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Quanta Storage, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/15: Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-699/19 P)

(2019/C 406/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, W. Sparks, advocaat, T. Siakka, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

a)	set aside the contested judgment insofar as it dismisses the action and orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission;

b)	annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2015 (Case AT39639 – Optical disc drives) insofar as it relates to the appellant;

c)	in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

d)	in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and

e)	order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on the following five pleas.

First Plea: alleging that the General Court failed to apply the relevant legal test and distorted the clear sense of evidence in relation to the breach of the rights of defence by the Commission’s finding of several infringements.

Second Plea: alleging that the General Court distorted the clear sense of evidence concerning the right of defence and the right to good administration.

Third Plea: alleging that General Court failed to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly and/or failed to apply the correct legal test in relation to contradictions concerning the scope of the infringement.

Fourth Plea: alleging a distortion of the clear sense of evidence, failure to apply the correct legal test and/or failure to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly as regards the Appellant’s liability under Article 101 TFEU.

Fifth Plea: alleging a breach of unlimited jurisdiction, distortion of the clear sense of evidence and defective reasoning in relation to the setting of the fine.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/17

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)

(Case C-701/19 P)

(2019/C 406/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—	set aside the contested order of the General Court;

—	declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

—	refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

—	order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted Maltese law by assuming that all powers of the appellant and its board were transferred to the competent person.

Second plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal violated the guarantee of an effective remedy under European law.

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in assuming that the contested decision is a mere preparatory measure.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision as well as more generally the facts of the case.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of a possible consultation of the competent person with the directors.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of an involvement of a lawyer in the case.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of the contested decision being contained in a mere email.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the application has not become devoid of purpose.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH and Others

(Case C-711/19)

(2019/C 406/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, Novomatic AG, AKO Gastronomiebetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Questions referred

Is Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Vienna Betting Terminal Duty Law which provide for taxation of the operation of betting terminals are to be assessed as ‘technical regulations’ within the meaning of that provision?

2.	Does the failure to notify the provisions of the Vienna Betting Terminal Duty Law within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 mean that a duty such as the betting terminal duty may not be levied?

(1) OJ 2015, L 241, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/19

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — LL v Parliament

(Case T-615/15 RENV) (1)

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Limitation)

(2019/C 406/26)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, and subsequently by S. Toliušis, N. Lorenz and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision D(2014) 1553 of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 April 2014 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 37 728 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance and of the debit note of 5 May 2014 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders LL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-615/15, and in the present proceedings on referral, in Case T-615/15 RENV;

3.	Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by LL in the appeal proceedings, in Case C-326/16 P.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/20

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — BASF Grenzach v ECHA

(Case T-125/17) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of substances - Triclosan - ECHA decision requesting further information - Article 51(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Action brought before the Board of Appeal - Task of the Board of Appeal - Adversarial nature of the procedure - Scope of the review - Intensity of the review - Powers of the Board of Appeal - Article 93(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006 - First sentence of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Relevant information - Proportionality - Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Data obtained under relevant circumstances - Persistence - Neurotoxicity - Reproductive toxicity - Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 771/2008 - Delay in the submission of a scientific opinion)

(2019/C 406/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF Grenzach GmbH (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) (represented: initially by K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Nordlander and K. Le Croy, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Röcke, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, W Broere and C. Jacquet, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Thorning and M. Wolff, and subsequently by M. Wolff, J. Nymann-Lindegren and P. Ngo, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Decision A-018-2014 of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 19 December 2016 in so far as it partially dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the ECHA decision of 19 September 2014 to request further information about the substance Triclosan (CAS 3380-34-5) and in which it fixed the deadline for presenting that information as 26 December 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders BASF Grenzach GmbH to bear its own costs, as well as the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/21

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 —Barata v Parliament

(Case T-467/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Selection procedure for contract staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 - Drivers - Practical and theoretical tests organised following the establishment of a database - Failure in the theoretical test - Annulment of the call for expressions of interest and voiding of the database - Action which has become devoid of purpose - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - No need, in part, to adjudicate - Inadmissibility in part)

(2019/C 406/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele, I. Terwinghe and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, issued by the Parliament for the recruitment of drivers, and of various acts adopted by the Parliament in connection with that selection procedure, including, in particular, the decision of 26 October 2016 informing the applicant that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver and the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, of the decision of 26 October 2016 informing Mr Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver, and of the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr Barata against that decision;

2.	Declares that there is also no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for a declaration that the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 does not apply to Mr Barata;

3.	Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible;

4.	Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Barata.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/22

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission

(Case T-610/17) (1)

(REACH - Substances subject to authorisation - Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Volumes - Registration dossier - Data - Substance grouping - Principle of sound administration - Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2019/C 406/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Huttunen, R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, T. Zbihlej and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/999 of 13 June 2017 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2017 L 150, p. 7), in so far as it includes 1-bromopropane (nPB) in that annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/22

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case T-636/17) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry relating to the substance bisphenol A on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)

(2019/C 406/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, C. Buchanan and A. Hautamäki, Agents, and initially by S. Raes, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented: initially by D. Colas, E. de Moustier and J. Traband, and subsequently by D. Colas, J. Traband and A. L. Desjonquères, Agents), ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ED/30/2017 by the Executive Director of ECHA of 6 July 2017, by which the existing entry relating to bisphenol A on the list of identified substances with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation, was supplemented to the effect that that substance is also identified as a substance with endocrine disrupting properties that may have serious effects on human health which give rise to a level of concern equivalent to that raised by the use of other substances listed in Article 57(a) to (e) of that regulation, within the meaning of Article 57(f) thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders PlasticsEurope to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;

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

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/23

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission

(Case T-650/17) (1)

(Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 - Imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Resumption of the procedure following the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 - Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Normal value - Fair comparison - Non-matching product types - Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Determination of injury)

(2019/C 406/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd (OJ 2017 L 166, p. 23).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd;

2.	Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/24

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-673/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)

(2019/C 406/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi, (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium), Région wallonne (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL, Port autonome de Namur, Port autonome de Charleroi, Port autonome de Liège and Région wallonne to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/25

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(Case T-674/17) (1)

(2019/C 406/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port de Bruxelles (Brussels, Belgium), Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/26

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission

(Case T-696/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Separable nature - Selective nature - Request for a transitional period)

(2019/C 406/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV (Antwerp, Belgium), Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV (Zeebrugge, Belgium) (represented by P. Wytinck, W. Panis and I. Letten, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven NV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/27

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 –Germany v ECHA

(Case T-755/17) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of substances - Benpat - Persistence - ECHA decision requesting further information - Article 51(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Action brought before the Board of Appeal - Task of the Board of Appeal - Adversarial procedure - Nature of review - Intensity of review - Powers of the Board of Appeal - Article 93(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Conferral of powers on EU agencies - Principle of conferral - Principle of subsidiarity - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 406/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, Agents)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Jacquet, and subsequently by W. Broere, C. Jacquet and L. Bolzonello Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, Agents), and by Envigo Consulting Ltd (Huntingdon, United Kingdom) and Djchem Chemicals Poland S.A. (Wołomin, Poland), (represented by: R. Cana, É. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Decision A-026-2015 of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 8 September 2017, in so far as it partially annulled the decision of the ECHA of 1 October 2015 requiring the conduct of further testing concerning the substance benpat (CAS 68953-84-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Annuls Decision A-026-2015 of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 8 September 2017, in so far as, in point 3 of the operative part of that decision, the Board of Appeal decided that the claim concerning bioaccumulation in the statement of reasons for the ECHA decision of 1 October 2015 requiring additional testing concerning the substance benpat (CAS 68953-84-4) should be deleted;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs, the costs incurred by the ECHA, and those incurred by Envigo Consulting Ltd and Djchem Chemicals Poland S.A.;

4.	Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/28

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 – GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for gadolinium-containing contrast agents - Articles 31 and 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Impartiality)

(2019/C 406/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), the marketing authorisations for gadolinium-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’, in so far as that decision concerns Omniscan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders GE Healthcare A/S to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/28

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament

(Case T-47/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary sanction - Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero - Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the procedural irregularity)

(2019/C 406/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by V. Montebello-Demogeot and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 27 February 2017 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero and, secondly, annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 imposing on UZ the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero;

2.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.	Orders UZ and the Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/29

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct)

(Case T-287/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Nature’s Variety Instinct - Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Southwark, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Yates, Solicitor, and N. Zweck, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2018 (Case R 1659/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/30

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)

(Case T-288/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT - Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2018 (Case R 1658/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/31

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)

(Case T-367/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UKIO - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and J. Dorado Lopez-Lozano, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marijn van Oosten Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 1536/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Marijn van Oosten Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 267 6.8.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/31

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE)

(Case T-378/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CRUZADE - Earlier EU figurative mark SANTA CRUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)

(2019/C 406/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NHS, Inc. (Santa Cruz, California, United States) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: HLC SB Distribution, SL (Irún, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Case R 1217/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NHS and HLC SB Distribution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders NHS, Inc., to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/32

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-716/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there - Earlier international figurative mark IDÉA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais and C. Guyot, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 (Case R 2062/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

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 21 September 2018 (Case R 2062/2017-4);

2.	Orders EUIPO and Idea Groupe to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by The Logistical Approach BV.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/33

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)

(Case T-67/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DOKKIO - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dokkio, Inc. (San Mateo, California, United States) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and L. Morin, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 (Case R 1187/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Dokkio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/34

Action brought on 23 September 2019 – DD v FRA

(Case T-632/19)

(2019/C 406/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the present action, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 100 000;

—	annul the decision of the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 19 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

—	if need be, annul the decision of the FRA director of 12 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the abovementioned decision of 19 November 2018;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not hear the applicant and did not adopt a decision pursuant to Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations following the judgment of 8 October 2015 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14, DD v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EU:F:2015:118).

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the administrative enquiry and the initial disciplinary proceedings were opened irregularly.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to compensate the applicant in respect of the non-material prejudice resulting from the decision of reprimand annulled by the Civil Service Tribunal in the abovementioned judgment.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to implement the abovementioned judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal and conduct the pre-disciplinary procedure within a reasonable time and with due diligence.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the opening and the conduct of the administrative inquiry violated Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, (1) the EU Staff Regulations and the right to private life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant repeatedly made unfounded, defamatory and offensive statements about the applicant which amount to violations of the principle of res judicata, of the presumption of innocence and of the duty of care.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/35

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA

(Case T-640/19)

(2019/C 406/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), SI Group - Béthune (Béthune, France), BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—	annul partially the contested act in so far it includes 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

—	order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging a violation of criteria for endocrine disruption and the weight of evidence approach, since the defendant failed to demonstrate that there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects on human health or the environment.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the ‘equivalent level of concern’, since

—

first, the ‘equivalent level of concern’ assessment required under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 did not take into account factors other than those relating to the hazards arising from the intrinsic properties of the substance and disregarded factors such as the biodegradability of PTBP that were necessary for the assessment (or were based on mere conjectures);

—	second, the proposing Member State, Germany, relied on unreliable data and unsubstantiated read-across to another substance’s properties;

—	third, the contested decision holds out that PTBP was equivalent to a CMR substance for which there is no scientific assessment to provide justification.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment/failure to consider carefully all relevant information and in particular exposure data.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality/failure to choose the least onerous options.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality/failure to conduct a proper Risk Management Options analysis taking into account risk management measures already in place.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/36

Action brought on 27 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-661/19)

(2019/C 406/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), SI Group - Béthune (Béthune, France), BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—	annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1194 of 5 July 2019 on the identification of 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern pursuant to Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019, L 187, p. 41);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-640/19, Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/37

Action brought on 7 October 2019 — Magyar v Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal v ACER

(Case T-684/19)

(2019/C 406/47)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Stanka, G. Szikla and J.M. Burai-Kovács, lawyers)

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

primarily,

—	annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;

—	declare that Title V of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459, (1) on which the contested decision is based, is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs;

—

in the alternative,

—

in the event that the General Court decides not to declare Regulation 2017/459, on which the contested decision is based, inapplicable, annul that decision (i) in the first place, for lack of competence, (ii) in the second place, for serious procedural infringement and (iii) in the third place, as unfounded;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns Decision No 05/2019 of ACER of 9 April 2019, confirmed by the Board of Appeal of ACER on 6 August 2019.

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

First plea in law, alleging that all of Title V of Regulation 2017/459, on which the contested decision is based, is invalid for lack of legislative competence.

Regulation 2017/459, on which the contested decision is based, was adopted under the power of legislative harmonisation delegated by Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)

On the basis of the powers delegated in Regulation No 715/2009, the Commission was competent only to create a network code, applied to the existing and incremental capacity of gas transmission systems, defining capacity-allocation mechanisms.

On the other hand, Title V, which goes beyond the subject-matter that it should regulate, does not establish a regulatory framework for distribution of gas transmission capacity which is neutral from the point of view of competence, but regulates in detail questions concerning investments in respect of incremental capacity, going beyond the scope of the network code.

Second plea in law, alleging that empowering ACER to adopt an individual decision with the content of the contested decision is invalid because there is no proper legal basis.

In the contested decision, ACER has assumed a decision-making power the delegation of which to ACER infringed the requirements imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases 9/56 (Meroni v High Authority and C-270 (United Kingdom v Council and Parliament) and infringed Article 114 TFEU. Therefore, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU that decision does not apply to the applicant in the main proceedings.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful on the basis of lack of competence

Aside from the question of validity, from a public-law perspective, of the regulation adopted by the Commission which constitutes the legal basis for ACER’s decision, that agency was also not authorised to adopt the contested decision on the basis of the legal provisions referred to as the legal basis for its decision, because

(i)	under Regulation 2017/459 only the decision-making powers specifically mentioned in Article 28(2) of that regulation may be exercised, and

(ii)

under Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (3) which governs the status of ACER and which was in force at the time the contested decision was adopted, ACER was only entitled to adopt a contested decision that

(a)	fell within the competence of the national regulatory authorities;

(b)	referred to access and operational security, and

(c)	concerned regulatory issues.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful for infringement of essential procedural requirements

The procedure conducted by ACER infringed Article 41(1) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, for failing to fulfil the obligation to state reasons and the requirements of a fair and impartial procedure.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was unlawful as it was unfounded

Taking into account that ACER did not, concerning the substance, assess ‘any detrimental effects on competition or the effective functioning of the internal gas market associated with the … projects’ in accordance with Article 22 of Regulation 2017/459, the contested regulation, in addition, could not be considered to be well-founded.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on capacity allocation mechanisms in gas transmission systems and repealing Regulation (EU) No 984/2013 (OJ 2017 L 72, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p.36; corrigendum in OJ 2009 L 309, p.87).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (OJ 2009 L 211, p.1).

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/39

Action brought on 11 October 2019 –Falqui v Parliament

(Case T-695/19)

(2019/C 406/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested notes and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Note D309417 of 8 July 2019 and Note D (2019) 14406 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament and, where relevant, against the opinion of the legal service of the European Parliament of 11 January 2019.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-347/19, Falqui v Parliament.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/39

Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-698/19)

(2019/C 406/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FJ and eight other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018;

—	order the EEAS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit in this connection that they could not have been aware of the irregularity of the remuneration paid to them under the correction coefficients in force.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which requires an interim update of remunerations where the variation in the cost of living, measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate, is found to have exceeded 5 % since the last update in the case of a given country.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/40

Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FT and Others v Commission

(Case T-699/19)

(2019/C 406/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FT and 25 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/41

Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Al-Gaoud v Conseil

(Case T-700/19)

(2019/C 406/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abdel Majid Al-Gaoud (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: S. Bafadhel, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintains the Applicant’s name on the list in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya in so far as it maintain the Applicant’s name on the list in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before the General Court in accordance with the Rules of the General Court.

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 Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1299 of 31 July 2019 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1292 of 31 July 2019 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 fail to disclose a lawful basis for maintaining the applicant’s listing, notwithstanding the fundamental change in circumstances in Libya. The Council has allegedly failed to provide individual, specific and concrete reasons for the Contested Measures which are not well-founded in any supporting material.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights including the right to health, the right to family life, the right to property, and the right to effective defense as safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Contested Measures are neither necessary nor appropriate for any legitimate aim and constitute an indefinite and disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s fundamental rights.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/42

Action brought on 15 October 2019 - FGSZ v ACER

(Case T-704/19)

(2019/C 406/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Földgázszállító Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság (FGSZ) (Siófok, Hungary) (represented by: M. Horányi, N. Niejahr and S. Zakka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul ACER decision No 5/2019 of 9 April 2019 on the incremental capacity project proposal for the Mosonmagyaróvár interconnection point (the ‘HUAT Project’), as upheld by the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Agency of 6 August 2019 in case number A-004-2019 (the ‘Board of Appeal Decision’);

—

in the alternative, annul the Contested Decision as upheld by the Board of Appeal Decision and declare void Article 1(1) and (2) of the Contested Decision to the extent that the applicant is obliged to carry out a binding phase for the marketing of incremental capacity at offer level I and offer level II of the HUAT Project as well as Article 2(4) of the Contested Decision insofar as it obliges the applicant to implement the HUAT project in case of a positive outcome of the economic test to be carried out;

—	in the alternative, annul and declare void the Board of Appeal Decision;

—	order ACER to bear its own costs and those of the Applicant in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.	First plea in law, alleging that ACER lacked competence to adopt the Contested Decision.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation 713/2009 (1) by obliging the applicant to implement the HUAT project.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 28(1)(d) and 22(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/459 (2) by amending the economic test parameters required under Article 22(1) of that Regulation.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 22(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/459 by failing to include the present value of the estimated increase in the allowed or target revenue of the applicant with the incremental capacity.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/459 by failing to properly analyse and take into account any potential detrimental effects on competition and on the effective functioning of the internal gas market of the HUAT project.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 194(1) TFEU by failing to take into consideration the principle of energy solidarity which would have required ACER to take into account the interest of other actors and to avoid adopting measures that would affect the Union’s or a Member State’s interests.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Articles 17, 18 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and violated the freedom of the applicant to conduct business and the applicant’s right to property by adopting the Contested Decision.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging that ACER violated Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by accepting to take the case before the dossier was sufficiently prepared and by failing to establish or consider all relevant facts.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal violated the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to grant sufficient time to the applicant to reply to the defence and to analyse the rejoinder prior to the oral hearing.

10.	Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal Decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the interpretation of Union law as it failed to conduct a full review and assessment of the legality of the Contested Decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, OJ L 211, 14.08.2009, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/459 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on capacity allocation mechanisms in gas transmission systems and repealing Regulation (EU) No 984/2013, OJ L 72, 17.03.2017, p. 1.

2.12.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/44

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-279/19

(Official Journal of the European Union C 220 of 1 July 2019)

(2019/C 406/53)

On page 41, the notice in the OJ in Case T-279/19, Front Polisario v Council, should read as follows:

Action brought on 27 April 2019 – Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-279/19)

(2019/C 406/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should

—	Declare its action admissible;

—	Annul the contested decision;

—	Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Council Decision (EU) 2019/217 of 28 January 2019 on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2019 L 34, p. 1), the applicant relies on ten pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the power to adopt the contested decision, in that the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco lack competence to enter into an international agreement that applies to Western Sahara, instead and in the place of the people of Western Sahara, represented by the Front Polisario.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the duty to examine the question of respect for fundamental rights and international humanitarian law, in that the Council failed to consider that question prior to adopting the contested decision.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging breach, on the part of the Council, of its obligation to execute the judgments of the Court, in so far as the contested decision disregards the grounds of the judgment of 21 December 2016, Council v Front Polisario (C-104/16 P, EU:C:2016:973).

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the essential principles and values guiding the Union’s action on the international stage, in that (i) the contested decision denies the existence of the people of Western Sahara as a legal subject in substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ therefor; (ii) in breach of the right of peoples freely to dispose of their natural resources, the contested decision concludes an international agreement which organises, without the consent of the people of Western Sahara, the export of its natural resources to the European Union, defining those resources as being of Moroccan origin; and (iii) the contested decision concludes an international agreement, applicable to occupied Western Sahara, with the Kingdom of Morocco, in the context of the latter’s annexationist policy with regard to Western Sahara and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in that the contested decision runs counter to the declarations made by the European Union, which has repeatedly affirmed the need to comply with the principles of self-determination and the relative effect of treaties.

Sixth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the principle of proportionality, in that, in the light of the separate and distinct status of Western Sahara, the intangible nature of the right to self-determination and the standing of the people of Western Sahara as third parties, it was not for the Council find that the alleged ‘advantages for the economy of Western Sahara’ were proportional to the repercussions for natural resources in Western Sahara.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to self-determination, in that (i) the contested decision denies the national unity of the people of Western Sahara, which has the right to self-determination, by substituting the words ‘populations concerned’ for that people; (ii) in breach of the right of the people of Western Sahara freely to dispose of its natural resources, the contested decision concludes an international agreement which organises, without the consent of the people of Western Sahara, the export of its natural resources to the European Union, which resources are to be defined as being of Moroccan origin; and (iii) in breach of the separate and distinct status of the territory of Western Sahara, the contested decision concludes an international agreement, applicable to occupied Western Sahara, and conceals the genuine country of origin of the goods from that territory, by defining them as being of Moroccan origin.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the relative effect of treaties, in that the contested decision denies the people of Western Sahara standing as a third party in EU-Morocco relations and imposes international obligations on it, relating to its national territory and natural resources, without its consent.

Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, in that (i) the contested decision concludes an international agreement applicable to Western Sahara when the Moroccan occupying forces do not have jus tractatus with regard to that territory and are prohibited from exploiting the natural resources thereof; and (ii) by using the words ‘populations concerned’, that decision endorses the illegal transfer of Moroccan colonists to the occupied territory of Western Sahara.

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to ensure compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in that, by concluding an international agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco which is applicable to Western Sahara, the contested decision ratifies the serious breaches of international law committed by the Moroccan occupying forces against the people of Western Sahara and renders aid and assistance in maintaining the situation arising from those breaches.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 406

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 62 2 December 2019

Contents		page
	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Court of Justice of the European Union
2019/C 406/01	Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union	1
	Court of Justice
2019/C 406/02	Appointment of the First Advocate General	2
2019/C 406/03	Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (urgent preliminary ruling procedure)	2
2019/C 406/04	Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (review of decisions given on appeal)	2
2019/C 406/05	Election of the Presidents of the Chambers of three Judges	2
2019/C 406/06	Taking of the oath by new Members of the Court	3
2019/C 406/07	Assignment of Judges to Chambers	3
2019/C 406/08	Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court	3
	General Court
2019/C 406/09	Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court	6

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2019/C 406/10	Case C-228/19 P: Appeal brought on 13 March 2019 by ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2019 in Case T-368/18, ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo)	7
2019/C 406/11	Case C-278/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 April 2019 by Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2019 in Case T-576/17, Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)	7
2019/C 406/12	Case C-295/19 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Apple Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2019 in Case T-215/17: Pear Technologies v EUIPO - Apple (PEAR)	8
2019/C 406/13	Case C-585/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2019 — Academia de Studii Economice din București v Organismul Intermediar pentru Programul Operațional Capital Uman — Ministerul Educației Naționale	8
2019/C 406/14	Case C-619/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2019 — Land Baden-Württemberg v D.R.	9
2019/C 406/15	Case C-635/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Órgano Administrativo de Recursos Contractuales de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi (Spain) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Confederación Sindical Comisiones Obreras de Euskadi v Ayuntamiento de Arrigorriaga	10
2019/C 406/16	Case C-644/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 28 August 2019 — FT v Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale	10
2019/C 406/17	Case C-645/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 August 2019 — Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit	11
2019/C 406/18	Case C-654/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 3 September 2019 — FP Passenger Service v Austrian Airlines AG	12
2019/C 406/19	Case C-657/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2019 —Tax Office D v E	13
2019/C 406/20	Case C-661/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2019 — flightright GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG	13
2019/C 406/21	Case C-667/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 September 2019 — A.M. v E.M.	14
2019/C 406/22	Case C-695/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 20 September 2019 — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira	15
2019/C 406/23	Case C-699/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Quanta Storage, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/15: Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission	16
2019/C 406/24	Case C-701/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)	17
2019/C 406/25	Case C-711/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Admiral Sportwetten GmbH and Others	18
	General Court
2019/C 406/26	Case T-615/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — LL v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Limitation)	19
2019/C 406/27	Case T-125/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — BASF Grenzach v ECHA (REACH — Evaluation of substances — Triclosan — ECHA decision requesting further information — Article 51(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Action brought before the Board of Appeal — Task of the Board of Appeal — Adversarial nature of the procedure — Scope of the review — Intensity of the review — Powers of the Board of Appeal — Article 93(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006 — First sentence of Article 47(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Relevant information — Proportionality — Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Data obtained under relevant circumstances — Persistence — Neurotoxicity — Reproductive toxicity — Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 771/2008 — Delay in the submission of a scientific opinion)	20
2019/C 406/28	Case T-467/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 —Barata v Parliament (Action for annulment — Civil service — Selection procedure for contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 — Drivers — Practical and theoretical tests organised following the establishment of a database — Failure in the theoretical test — Annulment of the call for expressions of interest and voiding of the database — Action which has become devoid of purpose — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings — No need, in part, to adjudicate — Inadmissibility in part)	21
2019/C 406/29	Case T-610/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission (REACH — Substances subject to authorisation — Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Volumes — Registration dossier — Data — Substance grouping — Principle of sound administration — Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment)	22
2019/C 406/30	Case T-636/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Supplement to the entry relating to the substance bisphenol A on that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Manifest error of assessment — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)	22
2019/C 406/31	Case T-650/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission (Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 — Imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Resumption of the procedure following the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 — Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a), (10) and (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Normal value — Fair comparison — Non-matching product types — Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(1) to (3) and Article 9(4) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) — Determination of injury)	23
2019/C 406/32	Case T-673/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Severability — Selectivity — Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)	24
2019/C 406/33	Case T-674/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Severability — Selectivity — Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)	25
2019/C 406/34	Case T-696/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Havenbedrijf Antwerpen and Maatschappij van de Brugse Zeehaven v Commission (State aid — Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Concept of economic activity — Services of general economic interest — Non-economic activities — Separable nature — Selective nature — Request for a transitional period)	26
2019/C 406/35	Case T-755/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 –Germany v ECHA (REACH — Evaluation of substances — Benpat — Persistence — ECHA decision requesting further information — Article 51(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Action brought before the Board of Appeal — Task of the Board of Appeal — Adversarial procedure — Nature of review — Intensity of review — Powers of the Board of Appeal — Article 93(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006 — Conferral of powers on EU agencies — Principle of conferral — Principle of subsidiarity — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)	27
2019/C 406/36	Case T-783/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 – GE Healthcare v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Suspension of the marketing authorisation for gadolinium-containing contrast agents — Articles 31 and 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Precautionary principle — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Impartiality)	28
2019/C 406/37	Case T-47/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Psychological harassment — Disciplinary sanction — Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero — Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance — Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out — Requirement of impartiality — Right to be heard — Procedural irregularity — Consequences of the procedural irregularity)	28
2019/C 406/38	Case T-287/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (Nature’s Variety Instinct) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Nature’s Variety Instinct — Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	29
2019/C 406/39	Case T-288/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT — Earlier national figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	30
2019/C 406/40	Case T-367/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	31
2019/C 406/41	Case T-378/18: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CRUZADE — Earlier EU figurative mark SANTA CRUZ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark)	31
2019/C 406/42	Case T-716/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there — Earlier international figurative mark IDÉA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	32
2019/C 406/43	Case T-67/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DOKKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)	33
2019/C 406/44	Case T-632/19: Action brought on 23 September 2019 – DD v FRA	34
2019/C 406/45	Case T-640/19: Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA	35
2019/C 406/46	Case T-661/19: Action brought on 27 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v Commission	36
2019/C 406/47	Case T-684/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 — Magyar v Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal v ACER	37
2019/C 406/48	Case T-695/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 –Falqui v Parliament	39
2019/C 406/49	Case T-698/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FJ and Others v EEAS	39
2019/C 406/50	Case T-699/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FT and Others v Commission	40
2019/C 406/51	Case T-700/19: Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Al-Gaoud v Conseil	41
2019/C 406/52	Case T-704/19: Action brought on 15 October 2019 - FGSZ v ACER	42

	Corrigenda
2019/C 406/53	Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-279/19 (OJ C 220 of 1 July 2019)	44