title: Case T-758/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB (Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB
      (Case T-758/16) (1)

      ((Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 328/60)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax, G. Bassani and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-468/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/55

      Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)
      (Case T-468/18)
      (2018/C 328/75)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercondor Barcelona SA (Barcelona, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘CONDOR SERVICE, NSC’ — Application for registration No 15 292 675

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2440/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings;

            in the alternative,

                  —

                  order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-612/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — PS v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Social security — Accident at work — Total and permanent invalidity — Occupational origin of the disease — System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases — Contributions to the pension scheme — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Liability — Non-material harm)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/14

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — PS v EIB
      (Case T-612/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - EIB staff - Social security - Accident at work - Total and permanent invalidity - Occupational origin of the disease - System for the insurance of accidents at work and occupational diseases - Contributions to the pension scheme - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Liability - Non-material harm))
      (2018/C 341/24)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: PS (represented by: N. Lhoëst and G. Cludts, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, E. Raimond and G. Faedo initially, then T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant since November 2013.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders PS to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-418/18 P: Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by European Citizens' Initiative One of Us against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-561/14: European Citizens' Initiative One of Us and others v European Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/5

      Appeal brought on 26 June 2018 by European Citizens' Initiative One of Us against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-561/14: European Citizens' Initiative One of Us and others v European Commission
      (Case C-418/18 P)
      (2018/C 341/06)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Citizens' Initiative One of Us (represented by: P. Diamond, Barrister, R. Kiska, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-561/14;

                  —

                  annul the Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 Final of 28 May 2014;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure for the appeal and the costs for the procedure of the hearing at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First, the General Court misapplied Article 117 TEU in the light of Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24 TFEU and Regulation 211/2011 (1); any discretion of the Commission must be consistent with the objectives of the ECI. The General Court’s ruling has failed to take into consideration the legislative intent of the Regulation; and has consequently made it dead letter.
      Second, the General Court erred in not finding that Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final (2) does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.
      Third, the General Court failed to review Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final with the correct level of scrutiny required. The General Court applied a test of limited review; namely of manifest error.
      Fourth, in any event, if the level of review as applied by the General Court is the correct legal test (which is not accepted), the General Court failed to hold that the reasons provided by the Commission in Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final satisfied the test of manifest error; inter alia the Commission has failed to apply correctly Case C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V; failed to consider the implications of the ‘triple lock’ system, which provides no ethical safeguards (and, in fact, provides incentives for Member States to lower their own ethical safeguards in order to access research funds). The Commission further manifestly erred in suggesting that offering access to abortion is an international obligation streaming from the ICPD Programme of Action in 1994 and the UN Millennium Development Goals; it has further erred in its illogical proposition that the financing of organizations promoting and practising abortion in developing countries would be beneficial to maternal health, as opposed to increasing funds towards the grossly understaffed and undersupplied health systems within these nations.
      Fifth, the General Court erred in the mischaracterizing of the ECI, namely as one for the introduction of three specific legislative proposals, rather than one for the protection of the dignity of the embryo. Thus, the General Court failed to correctly approach the issues in the case.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011, L 65, p. 1).

         (2)  Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens' Initiative ‘One of us’.


title: Case T-763/17: Action brought on 21 November 2017 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/56

         Action brought on 21 November 2017 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)
   (Case T-763/17)
   (2018/C 022/74)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘welly’ — Application for registration No 13 085 519

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 1525/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-630/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu lodged on 9 November 2017 — Anica Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu lodged on 9 November 2017 — Anica Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen
   (Case C-630/17)
   (2018/C 022/42)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anica Milivojević

      Defendant: Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the provisions of the Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici HrvatskOJ S neovlaštenim vjerovnikom (Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor; Narodne novine [Official Gazette] No 72/2017), in particular the provisions of Article 10 of that Law, which provides for the nullity of loan contracts and other legal acts that are consequential upon the loan contract concluded between a debtor (within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2, first indent, of the said Law) and an unauthorised creditor (within the meaning of Article 2, second indent, of the same Law) or are based on that contract, even if they were concluded before the entry into force of that Law, that nullity taking effect from the moment the contract was entered into, with the result that each of the contracting parties is obliged to return to the other party everything received by it on the basis of the void contract and, when that is impossible or when the nature of the action taken is incompatible with restoration, adequate pecuniary compensation must be paid, based on the prices in force when the judicial decision is delivered?

               (2)

               Must Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), in particular Articles 4(1) and 25, be interpreted as precluding provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of the Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici HrvatskOJ S neovlaštenim vjerovnikom, in which it is laid down that, in disputes relating to loan contracts with international features within the meaning of that Law, the debtor may sue an unauthorised creditor before the courts of the State in which the latter has its registered office or, irrespective of where the unauthorised creditor has its registered office, before the courts of the place where the debtor resides or has his registered office, whereas an unauthorised creditor, within the meaning of that Law, may commence proceedings against the debtor only in the courts of the State in which the latter resides or has his registered office?

               (3)

               Is it a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and of the legal acquis of the Union if the recipient of the loan is a natural person who has concluded a loan contract in order to invest in holiday apartments with the aim of carrying on the business of offering tourists private board and lodging?

               (4)

               Must Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction is enjoyed by the courts of the Republic of Croatia to hear and determine proceedings seeking a declaration of nullity of a loan contract and of the corresponding memoranda of guarantee, together with cancellation of the registration of a mortgage in the Land Registry, when, in order to guarantee performance of the obligations under the loan contract, that mortgage was secured upon immovable property of the debtor situated within the Republic of Croatia?


title: Case T-886/16: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty Factory (NAILS FACTORY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty Factory (NAILS FACTORY)
   (Case T-886/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 032/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and E. Scheffer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nails & Beauty Factory GmbH, formerly Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 202/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nf Nails In Vogue and Nails & Beauty Vertriebs.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nf Nails In Vogue, SL.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-359/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(1)(a) — Posted workers — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — E 101 certificate — Probative value — Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA
   (Case C-359/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(1)(a) - Posted workers - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on))
   (2018/C 123/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties in the main criminal proceedings

   Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

      Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an institution of a Member State to which workers have been posted makes an application to the institution that issued E 101 certificates for the review and withdrawal of those certificates in the light of evidence, collected in the course of a judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that those certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on, and the issuing institution fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the grounds for the issue of those certificates, a national court may, in the context of proceedings brought against persons suspected of having used posted workers ostensibly covered by such certificates, disregard those certificates if, on the basis of that evidence and with due regard to the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial which must be granted to those persons, it finds the existence of such fraud.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-204/17: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/27

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission
   (Case T-204/17) (1)

   (2018/C 123/34)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case C-518/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Article 2 — Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ — Article 17 — Derogations — Firefighters — Stand-by times — Stand-by times at home)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak
   (Case C-518/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 2 - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ - Article 17 - Derogations - Firefighters - Stand-by times - Stand-by times at home))
   (2018/C 134/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ville de Nivelles

      Defendant: Rudy Matzak

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(3)(c)(iii) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not derogate, with regard to certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services, from all the obligations arising from the provisions of that directive, including Article 2 thereof, which defines, in particular, the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’.

               2.

               Article 15 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not permitting Member States to maintain or adopt a less restrictive definition of the concept of ‘working time’ than that laid down in Article 2 of that directive.

               3.

               Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to determine the remuneration of periods of stand-by time such as those at issue in the main proceedings according to the prior classification of those periods as ‘working time’ or ‘rest period’.

               4.

               Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-129/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 19 February 2018 — SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 19 February 2018 — SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section
   (Case C-129/18)
   (2018/C 134/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SM

      Defendant: Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

      Interveners: Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC) and Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a child who is in the permanent legal guardianship of a Union citizen or citizens, under ‘kefalah’ or some equivalent arrangement provided for in the law of his or her country of origin, a ‘direct descendant’ within the meaning of Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2004/38 (1)?

               2.

               Can other provisions in the Directive, in particular Articles 27 and 35, be interpreted so as to deny entry to such children if they are the victims of exploitation, abuse or trafficking or are at risk of such?

               3.

               Is a Member State entitled to enquire, before recognising a child who is not the consanguineous descendant of the EEA national as a direct descendant under Article 2.2(c), into whether the procedures for placing the child in the guardianship or custody of that EEA national was such as to give sufficient consideration to the best interests of that child?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-16/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 February 2018 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (Appeal — Consumer protection — Online gambling services — Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online — Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU — EU act which is not legally binding — Article 263 TFEU)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 February 2018 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission
   (Case C-16/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Consumer protection - Online gambling services - Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online - Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU - EU act which is not legally binding - Article 263 TFEU))
   (2018/C 134/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Wilman and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case C-628/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Successive supplies relating to the same goods — Place of the second supply — Information provided by the first supplier — VAT identification number — Right to deduct — Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz
   (Case C-628/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Successive supplies relating to the same goods - Place of the second supply - Information provided by the first supplier - VAT identification number - Right to deduct - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))
   (2018/C 134/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 32 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the second of two successive supplies of the same goods which gave rise to only one intra-Community transport.

               2.

               Where the second supply in a chain of two successive supplies involving a single intra-Community transport is an intra-Community supply, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the person ultimately acquiring the goods, who wrongly claimed a right to deduct input value added tax, may not deduct, as input value added tax, the value added tax paid to the supplier solely on the basis of the invoices provided by the intermediary operator which incorrectly classified its supply.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


201806080291931362018/C 221/23342017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504202011Case T-34/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark SKYLEADER — Failure to take into account evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001] — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001] — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 [now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU 2017/1430])
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2010120180504EN0023201201Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Skyleader v EUIPO — Sky International (SKYLEADER)
   (Case T-34/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark SKYLEADER — Failure to take into account evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001] — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001] — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 [now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU 2017/1430])’2018/C 221/23Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Skyleader a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Malmstedt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 805/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sky International and Skyleader.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Skyleader a.s. to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Sky International AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


201806150541955112018/C 231/552882018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504434311Case T-288/18: Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4310120180504EN0055431431Action brought on 4 May 2018 — M. I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT)
   (Case T-288/18)2018/C 231/55Language in which the application was lodged: 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 (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark NATURE’S VARIETY INSTINCT — Application for registration No 14 290 589

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28/02/2018 in Case R 1658/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO and -if applicable- the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201806290731986532018/C 249/294612016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531242411Case T-461/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Kaddour v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the force of res judicata — Infringement of Article 266 TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2410120180531EN0029241241Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Kaddour v Council
   (Case T-461/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration — Principle of the force of res judicata — Infringement of Article 266 TFEU — Manifest error of assessment — Fundamental rights — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)’2018/C 249/29Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors, and by R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Bauerschmidt and G. Étienne, and subsequently by J. Bauerschmidt and by S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2013/255 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


201806290741986702018/C 249/554742016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180529454511Case T-474/16: Order of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sowaer v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN4510120180529EN0055451451Order of the General Court of 29 May 2018 — Sowaer v Commission
   (Case T-474/16) (
         1
      )2018/C 249/55Language of the case: FrenchThe President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


201806290081986422018/C 249/172842018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425121211Case C-284/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2018 — Equitalia centro SpA v Poste Italiane SpA
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1210120180425EN0017121121Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2018 — Equitalia centro SpA v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-284/18)2018/C 249/17Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant (and respondent in the cross-appeal): Equitalia centro SpA

      Respondent (and appellant in the cross-appeal): Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is a rule such as that provided for in the combined provisions of Article 10(3) decreto legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 504/1992 and Article 2(18)-(20) of legge (Law) No 662/1996 according to which a reservation of activity (monopoly) in favour of Poste Italiane s.p.a. is set up and maintained — even following the privatisation of the ‘bancoposta’ postal banking services provided by Poste Italiane s.p.a. — in relation to the management of the postal current account intended for the collection of the local tax ICI, contrary to Articles 14 TFEU (formerly Article 7D of the Treaty, then Article 16 TEC) and 106(2) TFEU (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty, then Article 86(2) TEC) and to classification as a service of general economic interest (SGEI), taking into account the evolution of State regulation in the area of tax collection which, since 1997 at least, allows taxpayers and local tax authorities to make payments and collections through the banking system?

            2.

            If the answer to the first question is that the establishment of the statutory monopoly must be recognised as meeting the SGEI criteria, is a rule such as that resulting from the combined provisions of Article 10(3) decreto legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 504/1992, Article 2(18)-(20) of legge (Law) No 662/1996 and Article 3(1) decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (Presidential Decree) No 144/2001, which grant Poste Italiane s.p.a. the power unilaterally to determine the level of the fee, payable by the agent collecting the ICI taxes, that is applied to each management operation carried out on the postal current account in the name of the agent, contrary to Articles 106(2) TFEU (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty, then Article 86(2) TEC) and 107(1) TFEU (formerly Article 92 of the Treaty, then Article 87 TCE), according to the interpretation of such rules provided by the Court of Justice with reference to the requirements for distinguishing a lawful measure — compensatory of public service obligations — from unlawful State aid (judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00), regard being had to the fact that Poste Italiane spa, by board decision No 57/1996, set that fee at 100 Lire for the period from 1 April 1997 to 31 May 2001 and at EUR 0,23 for the period from 1 June 2001?

            3.

            Is a set of rules such as that put in place by Article 2(18)-(20) of legge (Law) No 662/1996, Article 3(1) decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (Presidential Decree) No 144/2001 and Article 10(3) decreto legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 504/1992, necessarily subjecting the agent to payment of the fee as unilaterally determined and/or varied by Poste Italiane s.p.a., contrary to Article 102, first paragraph, TFEU (formerly Article 86 of the Treaty, then Article 82(1) TEC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice (see judgments of the Court of Justice of 13 December 1991, Case C-18/88, GB-Inno-BM, of 25 June 1998, Case C-203/96, Dusseldorp and Others, and of 17 May 2001, Case C-340/99, TNT TRACO), since the agent is not otherwise able to withdraw from the postal current account contract without infringing the obligation laid down in Article 10(3) Decreto Legislativo No 504/1992 and, as a consequence, infringing its ICI-collection obligations in regard to the local tax authority?


201806290781986542018/C 249/567872016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531454512Case T-787/16: Order of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — QD v EUIPO
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN4520120180531EN0056452451Order of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — QD v EUIPO
   (Case T-787/16) (
         1
      )2018/C 249/56Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


201806290461986292018/C 249/307702016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531252511Case T-770/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Conduct adversely affecting the dignity of the Parliament and the smooth running of parliamentary business — Disciplinary sanctions of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance and temporary suspension from participation in all activities of the Parliament — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2510120180531EN0030251251Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
   (Case T-770/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Conduct adversely affecting the dignity of the Parliament and the smooth running of parliamentary business — Disciplinary sanctions of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance and temporary suspension from participation in all activities of the Parliament — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)’2018/C 249/30Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Józefów, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi and A. Daoût, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de León and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, action brought under Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 5 July 2016 and of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 August 2016 imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance for a period of ten days and temporary suspension from participation in all activities of the Parliament for a period of five consecutive days and, second, action brought under Article 268 TFEU and seeking damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 August 2016;

            2.

            Dismisses the claim for damages;

            3.

            Orders Mr Janusz Korwin-Mikke and the Parliament each to bear their own respective costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


201806290151986772018/C 249/182862018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180309131311Case C-286/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1310120180309EN0018131131Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-286/18)2018/C 249/18Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agrenergy Srl

      Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Question referred

   Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC (
         1
      ) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).


201806290581986302018/C 249/318032016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606252622Case T-803/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2520120180606EN0031252262Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)
   (Case T-803/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SALMEX — Earlier three-dimensional national mark — Competence of the Board of Appeal to examine of its own motion whether the earlier mark had been put to genuine use — Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 71(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 249/31Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, T. St Quintin, S. Wickenden, Barristers, E. Morris and R. Jacob, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland) (represented by: M. Krasiński, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Celon Pharma.

      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 31 August 2016 (Case R 2108/2015-4);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Glaxo Group Ltd during the proceedings before the General Court;

            3.

            Orders Celon Pharma S.A. to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


201806290261986482018/C 249/062232018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803273423Case C-223/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2018 in Case T-68/16: Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN330120180327EN00063342Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2018 in Case T-68/16: Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-223/18 P)2018/C 249/06Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Munich, SL

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the decision of the General Court of 17 January 2018 in case T-68/17;

            —

            annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in case R 2345/2014-4;

            —

            in the alternative refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

            —

            order the respondent and the intervener to bear the costs both in relation to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested decision infringes Articles 51 (1) (a) and 15 (1) CTMR (now Articles 58 (1) (a) and 18 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (
         1
      ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, hereinafter referred to as ‘EUTMR’) in several regards. In particular the General Court did not correctly determine the meaning of the term ‘the trade mark’ in Articles 51 (1) (a) and 15 (1) CTMR.

            (1)

            First, the General Court misjudged the importance, and the legal consequences of, determining the type of mark concerned. It wrongly assumed that it did not matter whether the contested trademark was classified as a figurative mark or as a position mark. In fact, however, the distinction between different types of marks has a significant influence on their subject matter as well as on the way in which they are used. The use of the contested trademark as a figurative mark would differ considerably from the way in which it would be used if it was a position mark.

            (2)

            Second, the General Court did not correctly determine the subject matter of the contested trademark, but regarded and treated the contested trade mark as a position mark. The contested mark is a figurative mark, since it has been applied for and registered as a figurative mark, and no description or disclaimer was entered that suggested otherwise. The mere use of broken lines does not make a figurative mark a position mark.

            (3)

            As a consequence, the General Court incorrectly assumed that Munich S.L. showed genuine use of its mark by showing the sale of shoes, to the side of which two intersecting lines were applied. This kind of use could only account for the use of a position mark, but not for the use of a figurative mark like the contested one.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1.


201806290711986402018/C 249/584432017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180530454514Case T-443/17: Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN4540120180530EN0058454451Order of the General Court of 30 May 2018 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission
   (Case T-443/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 249/58Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


201807060221994442018/C 259/043702016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805304411Case C-370/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara — Italy) — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Protocol No 7 — Article 1 — Whether or not prior authorisation from the Court is necessary — Structural Funds — EU financial assistance — Attachment proceedings against a national authority to attach sums deriving from that assistance)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN410120180530EN00044141Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Novara — Italy) — Bruno Dell’Acqua v Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia
   (Case C-370/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Protocol No 7 — Article 1 — Whether or not prior authorisation from the Court is necessary — Structural Funds — EU financial assistance — Attachment proceedings against a national authority to attach sums deriving from that assistance)’2018/C 259/04Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Tribunale di Novara

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bruno Dell’Acqua

      Defendant: Eurocom Srl, Regione Lombardia

      Intervening parties: Renato Quattrocchi, Antonella Pozzoli, Loris Lucini, Diego Chierici, Nicoletta Malaraggia, Elio Zonca, Sonia Fusi, Danilo Cattaneo, Alberto Terraneo, Luigi Luzzi

      Operative part of the judgment

   The last sentence of Article 1 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that prior authorisation from the Court is not necessary when a third party initiates attachment proceedings seeking to attach a claim against a Member State body that owes a corresponding debt to the debtor of the third party where that debtor is a beneficiary of funds granted for the purpose of implementing projects co-financed by the European Social Fund.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


201807060691994322018/C 259/504562017TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180608363611Case T-456/17: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2018 –Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Djili soy original DS — Earlier national word mark DJILI — Relative ground for refusal — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN3610120180608EN0050361361Order of the General Court of 8 June 2018 –Lupu v EUIPO — Dzhihangir (Djili soy original DS)
   (Case T-456/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Djili soy original DS — Earlier national word mark DJILI — Relative ground for refusal — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)’2018/C 259/50Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: P. Acsinte, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ibryam Dzhihangir (Silistra, Bulgaria) (represented by: C.-R. Romiţan, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 516/2011-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Mr Dzhihangir.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The plea of inadmissibility is joined to the main proceedings.

            2.

            The action is dismissed.

            3.

            Mr Victor Lupu shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

            4.

            Mr Ibryam Dzhihangir shall bear his own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


201807060351994072018/C 259/053822016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805315511Case C-382/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate — Germany) — Hornbach-Baumarkt AG v Finanzamt Landau (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Legislation of a Member State — Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies — Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence — Correction of the taxable income of the resident company — No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Justification)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN510120180531EN00055151Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate — Germany) — Hornbach-Baumarkt AG v Finanzamt Landau
   (Case C-382/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Legislation of a Member State — Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies — Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence — Correction of the taxable income of the resident company — No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Justification)’2018/C 259/05Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 54 TFEU), must be interpreted as, in principle, not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the income of a company resident in a Member State which granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has a relationship of interdependence advantages under terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances, must be calculated as it would have been if the terms which would have been agreed with unrelated third parties had been applicable, and be corrected, despite the fact that such a correction is not made in respect of taxable income when the same advantages are granted by a resident company to another resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings affords the resident taxpayer the opportunity to prove that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the non-resident company.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


201807060271993522018/C 259/23732018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180202171711Case C-73/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2018 by Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2017 in Case T-465/16, Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (Cotecnica OPTIMA)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN1710120180202EN0023171171Appeal brought on 2 February 2018 by Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2017 in Case T-465/16, Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (Cotecnica OPTIMA)
   (Case C-73/18 P)2018/C 259/23Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Appellant: Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and L. Montoya Terán, abogados).

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Visán Industrias Zootécnicas.
   By order of 7 June 2018, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered Cotécnica, S.C.C.L to bear its own costs.


201807060041993992018/C 259/372932018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426262722Case C-293/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2018 — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN2620120180426EN0037262272Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 26 April 2018 — Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia v Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega
   (Case C-293/18)2018/C 259/37Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicato Nacional de CCOO de Galicia

      Defendants: Unión General de Trabajadores de Galicia (UGT), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Confederación Intersindical Galega

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must workers engaged pursuant to Article 20 of Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, Tecnología y la Innovación (Law 14/2011 of 1 June 2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation) be regarded as falling within the scope of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which led to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999? (
                  1
               )

            2.

            Must the compensation payable on the termination of contracts of employment be regarded as an employment condition as referred to in clause 4 of the framework agreement?

            3.

            If the previous questions are answered in the affirmative, must the termination of the contracts of employment of workers engaged pursuant to Law 14/2011 of 1 June 2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation and the termination of permanent contracts on objective grounds in accordance with Article 52 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as comparable?

            4.

            If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, is there any ground under legislation for the differences?

      (
         1
      )	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).


201807060151993632018/C 259/241402018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180222171822Case C-140/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN1720120180222EN0024172182Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 22 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others
   (Case C-140/18)2018/C 259/24Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

      Parties to the main proceedings

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

      Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

      Interested party: Finanzpolizei

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (
                  1
               ) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as failure by the hiring-out entity to make documents relating to pay available to the third-party employer, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

            2.

            If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
            Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

            3.

            If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is in the negative:
            Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.


201807060081993462018/C 259/064262016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805295622Case C-426/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW and Others v Vlaams Gewest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of animals at the time of killing — Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites — Muslim Feast of Sacrifice — Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 — Article 2(k) — Article 4(4) — Obligation for ritual slaughtering without stunning to be carried out in approved slaughterhouses which satisfy the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 10 — Freedom of religion — Article 13 TFEU — Respect for national customs with regard to religious rites)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN520120180529EN00065262Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW and Others v Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-426/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of animals at the time of killing — Particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites — Muslim Feast of Sacrifice — Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 — Article 2(k) — Article 4(4) — Obligation for ritual slaughtering without stunning to be carried out in approved slaughterhouses which satisfy the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 10 — Freedom of religion — Article 13 TFEU — Respect for national customs with regard to religious rites)’2018/C 259/06Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique IVZW, lslamitische Federatie van België VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

      Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

      Intervening parties: Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) VZW

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the question has not disclosed any issues capable of affecting the validity of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 2(k) thereof, having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


201807060181993502018/C 259/251462018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180223181811Case C-146/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN1810120180223EN0025181181Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler
   (Case C-146/18)2018/C 259/25Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Humbert Jörg Köfler

      Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

      Interested party: Finanzpolizei

      Question referred

   Must Articles 47 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for a mandatory contribution to the procedural costs of appeal proceedings of 20 % of the fine imposed?


201807060381994052018/C 259/074832016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805316721Case C-483/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency — National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged — Principle of equivalence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN610120180531EN00076172Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Zsolt Sziber v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
   (Case C-483/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7(1) — Loan agreements denominated in a foreign currency — National legislation providing for specific procedural requirements when the fairness of terms is challenged — Principle of equivalence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection)’2018/C 259/07Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zsolt Sziber

      Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

      Intervener: Mónika Szeder

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which imposes specific procedural requirements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, on actions brought by consumers who have concluded loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, containing a term stipulating a differential between the exchange rate applicable to the provision of the loan and that applicable to the repayment of the loan and/or a clause providing for an option of unilateral amendment allowing the lender to increase the interest rate, commission and costs, provided that a finding of unfairness in respect of those terms in such a contract makes it possible to restore the legal and factual situation in which the consumer would have found himself had it not been for those unfair terms.

            2.

            Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as also applying to situations without a cross-border element.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


201807060631994542018/C 259/663382018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531495021Case T-338/18: Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Saleh Thabet v Coucil
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN4910120180531EN0066491502Action brought on 31 May 2018 — Saleh Thabet v Coucil
   (Case T-338/18)2018/C 259/66Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/466 of 21 March 2018 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/465 of 21 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt insofar as they apply to the applicant;

            —

            declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt are inapplicable, insofar as they apply to the applicant; and
            order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council has made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation are illegal because (a) they lack a valid legal basis and/or (b) they breach the principle of proportionality.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights


201807060341994042018/C 259/085172016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805307711Case C-517/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN710120180530EN00087171Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku
   (Case C-517/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)’2018/C 259/08Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stefan Czerwiński

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            The classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, made by the competent national authority in the declaration submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 9(1) of that regulation, is not definitive. The classification of a social security benefit may be made by the national court concerned, autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute the social security benefit at issue, and by referring, if necessary, a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

            2.

            A benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


201807060721993312018/C 259/516082017TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180606363722Case T-608/17: Order of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN3620120180606EN0051362372Order of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)
   (Case T-608/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)’2018/C 259/51Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N.A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2017 (Case R 2300/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between DF World of Spices GmbH and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

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

            2.

            Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV shall pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


201807060751994162018/C 259/673492018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180605505011Case T-349/18: Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN5010120180605EN0067501501Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO (TurboPerformance)
   (Case T-349/18)2018/C 259/67Language in which the application was lodged: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Hauzenberger (Sinzing, Germany) (represented by: B. Bittner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word elements ‘TurboPerformance’ — Application for registration No 16 053 431

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2018 in Case R 2206/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

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


201807060391994092018/C 259/095262016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805317822Case C-526/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/92/EC — Assessment of the effects on the environment of drilling to locate or search for shale gas — Deep drillings — Selection criteria — Determination of thresholds)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN720120180531EN00097282Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-526/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/92/EC — Assessment of the effects on the environment of drilling to locate or search for shale gas — Deep drillings — Selection criteria — Determination of thresholds)’2018/C 259/09Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung, D. Milanowska and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Krawczyk, M. Orion Jędrysek, H. Schwarz and K. Majcher, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that, by excluding projects to locate or search for shale gas deposits by means of drilling to a depth of 5000 metres — with the exception of drilling to a depth of more than 1000 metres in areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and nature protection areas in the form of national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks and ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas and the contiguous protection zones — from the procedure for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of, and Annexes II and III to, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

            2.

            Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201807060461994202018/C 259/522802018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503373821Case T-280/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN3710120180503EN0052371382Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
   (Case T-280/18)2018/C 259/52Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

            —

            annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 with regard to the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;

            —

            order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. (
                  1
               )

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to be heard and other procedural rights.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.

            8.

            Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

            9.

            Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.

            10.

            Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.

            11.

            Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

            12.

            Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

            13.

            Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the applicant’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1)


201807060621993562018/C 259/683502018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180605505122Case T-350/18: Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Euronet Consulting v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN5020120180605EN0068502512Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Euronet Consulting v Commission
   (Case T-350/18)2018/C 259/68Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Euronet Consulting EEIG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Peeters and R. van Cleemput, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

            —

            annul the defendant’s decision of unknown date, communicated to the applicant by letter of 26 March 2018, rejecting its bid for lot 2 of tender EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi — Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018), and awarding the contract to ten other tenderers;

            —

            order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that one legal group was represented twice in a single lot.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that one legal person acted twice as a leader of a consortium and a third time as a member of a consortium.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that one legal group was represented in more than two lots.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that one legal group acted as leader in more than two lots.


201807060071993362018/C 259/105422016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805318921Case C-542/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Jan-Erik Strobel and Others v Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/92/EC — Scope — Concept of insurance mediation — Directive 2004/39/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘investment advice’ — Advice given in insurance mediation concerning the placement of capital in the context of capital life assurance — Classification of the activity of an insurance agent in the absence of his intention to conclude a genuine insurance contract)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN810120180531EN00108192Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Jan-Erik Strobel and Others v Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag
   (Case C-542/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/92/EC — Scope — Concept of insurance mediation — Directive 2004/39/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘investment advice’ — Advice given in insurance mediation concerning the placement of capital in the context of capital life assurance — Classification of the activity of an insurance agent in the absence of his intention to conclude a genuine insurance contract)’2018/C 259/10Language of the case: Swedish
      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag, Jan-Erik Strobel, Mona Strobel, Margareta Nilsson, Per Nilsson, Kent Danås, Dödsboet efter Tommy Jönsson, Stefan Pramryd, Stefan Ingemansson, Lars Persson, Magnus Persson, Anne-Charlotte Wickström, Peter Nilsson, Ingela Landau, Thomas Landau, Britt-Inger Ruth Romare, Gertrud Andersson, Eva Andersson, Rolf Andersson, Lisa Bergström, Bo Sörensson, Christina Sörensson, Kaj Wirenkook, Lena Bergquist Johansson, Agneta Danås, Hans Eriksson, Christina Forsberg, Christina Danielsson, Per-Olof Danielsson, Ann-Christin Jönsson, Åke Jönsson, Stefan Lindgren, Daniel Röme, Ulla Nilsson, Dödsboet efter Leif Göran Erik Nilsson

      Defendants: Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 2, point 3, of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance mediation’ includes work preparatory to the conclusion of an insurance contract, even in the absence of any intention on the part of the insurance intermediary concerned to conclude a genuine insurance contract.

            2.

            Financial advice relating to the placement of capital in the context of insurance mediation relating to the conclusion of a capital life assurance contract falls within the scope of Directive 2002/92 and not that of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201807060591994152018/C 259/693532018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528515221Case T-353/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN5110120180528EN0069511522Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)
   (Case T-353/18)2018/C 259/69Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Promeco NV (Kortrijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerts NV (Geel, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Design at issue: European Union design No 218 193-0010

      Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2018 in Case R 459/2016-G

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            dismiss the appeal brought by Aerts NV against the decision of the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division of 8 January 2016, case ICD 9842;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal;

            —

            order Aerts NV, in case it intervenes in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the Applicant before the Grand Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 25(1) in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


201807060111993612018/C 259/261482018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180223181812Case C-148/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN1820120180223EN0026182181Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others
   (Case C-148/18)2018/C 259/26Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

      Parties to the main proceedings

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

      Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

      Interested party: Finanzpolizei

      Question referred

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


201807060361993922018/C 259/116332016CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201805319911Case C-633/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Control of concentrations of undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 7(1) — Implementation of a concentration prior to notification to the European Commission and declaration of compatibility with the common market — Prohibition — Scope — Concept of ‘concentration’ — Termination of a cooperation agreement with a third party by one of the merging undertakings)
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN910120180531EN00119191Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ernst & Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet
   (Case C-633/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Control of concentrations of undertakings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Article 7(1) — Implementation of a concentration prior to notification to the European Commission and declaration of compatibility with the common market — Prohibition — Scope — Concept of ‘concentration’ — Termination of a cooperation agreement with a third party by one of the merging undertakings)’2018/C 259/11Language of the case: Danish
      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsretten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ernst & Young P/S

      Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is implemented only by a transaction which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in control of the target undertaking. The termination of a cooperation agreement, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, which it is for the referring court to determine, may not be regarded as bringing about the implementation of a concentration, irrespective of whether that termination has produced market effects.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


201807060251993662018/C 259/382952018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430272711Case C-295/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 30 April 2018 — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação S.A. v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN2710120180430EN0038271271Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 30 April 2018 — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação S.A. v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA
   (Case C-295/18)2018/C 259/38Language of the case: Portuguese
      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação S.A.

      Defendants: Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA

      Questions referred

            1.

            Should Article 2 of Directive 2007/64/EC (
                  1
               ) be interpreted such that its scope, as defined in that article, must be deemed to include the execution of a direct-debit payment order issued by a third-party on an account which it does not hold, where the holder of that account has not entered into a payment service contract for a single transaction, or a framework contract for the provision of payment services with that credit institution?

            2.

            If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, in those circumstances, can that account holder be considered to be a payment service user under Article 58 of the that directive?

      (
         1
      )	Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007, L 319, p. 1).