title: Case C-573/19: Action brought on 26 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/29

      Action brought on 26 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-573/19)
      (2019/C 305/36)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  order that, because of the systematic and continuous failure to observe the annual limit values for NO2 concentration

                              —

                              since 2010, and continuously, in zones IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin), IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan), IT0307 (agglomeration of Bergamo), IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia), IT0309 (zone A — plain with a high level of urbanisation), IT0906 (agglomeration of Florence), IT0711 (Municipality of Genoa), IT1215 (agglomeration of Rome),

                              —

                              from 2010 to 2012 and then again since 2014, continuously, in zones IT1912 (agglomeration of Catania) and IT1914 (industrial land),

                        a failure which persists, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligation under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI thereto;

                  2.

                  order that, by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 concentration in the zones referred to in paragraph 1, the Italian Republic has systematically and continuously failed also to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, both on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto, a failure which persists;

                  3.

                  as a result, order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

            By its first plea in law
         , the Commission claims that the data collected regarding NO2 concentration in the air demonstrate a systematic and continuous infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2008/50, in conjunction with Annex XI thereto. In accordance with those provisions, considered jointly, the level of concentration of those substances cannot exceed fixed annual limits. In certain zones, those limits have been exceeded continuously for more than ten years.

            By its second plea in law
         , the Commission claims that the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto. In the first place, it submits, the air quality plans, adopted following the exceedance of the limit values for NO2 concentration, do not make it possible to comply with those limit values or to limit the exceedance to the shortest period possible. In the second place, many of those plans do not contain the information required under Section A of Annex XV to the directive, the provision of that information being mandatory under the third subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof.

         (1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case T-94/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Binca Seafoods v Commission (Production and labelling of organic products — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — Prohibition of hormones — Non-renewal of the transitional period concerning aquaculture animals provided for in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 — Methods of reproduction — Exceptional authorisation to collect wild aquaculture juveniles for on-growing purposes — Equal treatment)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Binca Seafoods v Commission
      (Case T-94/15 RENV) (1)

      (Production and labelling of organic products - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - Prohibition of hormones - Non-renewal of the transitional period concerning aquaculture animals provided for in Article 95(11) of Regulation No 889/2008 - Methods of reproduction - Exceptional authorisation to collect wild aquaculture juveniles for on-growing purposes - Equal treatment)
      (2019/C 305/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, G. von Rintelen and K. Walkerová, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Binca Seafoods GmbH is ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

         (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case T-582/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Evidence of involvement in a cartel — Single and continuous infringement — Principle of equality of arms — ‘Right to confront’ — 2006 Leniency Notice — Significant added value — Attributability of unlawful conduct — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Upper limit of the fine)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission
      (Case T-582/15) (1)

      (Competition - Cartels - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Evidence of involvement in a cartel - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of equality of arms - ‘Right to confront’ - 2006 Leniency Notice - Significant added value - Attributability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Upper limit of the fine)
      (2019/C 305/38)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf, Germany) and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf) (represented initially by M. Wirtz, S. Möller and W. Carstensen, then by M. Wirtz, S. Möller and C. Karbaum, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, G. Meessen, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging) and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-150/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2019 — V.C. Sp. z. o. o. v P.K.

text:
               23.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2019 — V.C. Sp. z. o. o. v P.K.
      (Case C-150/19)
      (2019/C 319/25)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: V.C. Sp. z. o. o.

         Defendant: P.K.
      By order of 4 June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that Case C-150/19 is to be removed from the register of the Court.


title: Case C-519/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Passenger Rights spółka akcyjna, with its seat in Warsaw v Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)

text:
               7.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Passenger Rights spółka akcyjna, with its seat in Warsaw v Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)
      (Case C-519/19)
      (2019/C 337/08)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Passenger Rights SA

         Defendant: Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)

         Questions referred

      Should Articles 2(b), 3(1) and (2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) 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 — as regards examination of the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction — be interpreted as meaning that the final purchaser of a claim acquired by way of assignment from a consumer, which final purchaser is not a consumer himself, may rely on the absence of individual negotiation of contractual terms and on unfair contractual terms arising from a jurisdiction clause?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

         (2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case C-638/19 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2019 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 June 2019 in Case T-624/15: European Food e.a. v Commission

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/14

      Appeal brought on 27 August 2019 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 June 2019 in Case T-624/15: European Food e.a. v Commission
      (Case C-638/19 P)
      (2019/C 348/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, Agent, P.-J. Loewenthal, Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Food SA, Starmill SRL, Multipack SRL,Scandic Distilleries SA, Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Transilvania General Import-Export SRL, West Leasing International SRL, Kingdom of Spain and Hungary

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 June 2019 in joined cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, European Food and Others v. Commission (1);

                  —

                  reject the first part of the first plea and the first part of the second plea put forward in case T-704/15;

                  —

                  reject the first and second part of the second plea put forward in cases T-624/15 and T-694/15;

                  —

                  refer joined cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15 back to the General Court for reconsideration of the pleas not already assessed; and

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By a first ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error in law consisting of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 108 TFEU and/or Annex V, chapter 2, of Romania’s Act of Accession (2), and an erroneous legal qualification of the facts, by concluding that the Commission was not competent to adopt the contested decision (3).

                  —

                  By a primary argument, the Commission submits that the General Court was wrong to conclude that the measure through which Romania granted aid to Ion and Viorel Micula, investors with Swedish nationality, and three Romanian companies they control (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘The Miculas’) is the repeal of the incentive scheme on 22 February 2005. Rather, it is through the payment by Romania of the compensation awarded for the repeal of that scheme, which occurs after its accession to the Union that aid is granted to the Miculas.

                  —

                  By a subsidiary argument, the Commission submits that, even if the General Court was right to conclude that the aid granting measure was the repeal of the incentive scheme by Romania (quod non), the Commission was still competent to adopt the contested decision by virtue of Annex V, chapter 2, of Romania’s Act of Accession.

            By a second ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error in law consisting of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Romania’s Act of Accession and of the rules on the application of EU law ratione temporis, and/or a misinterpretation and misapplication of the 1995 Europe Agreement (4), and an erroneous legal qualification of the facts, by concluding that EU law did not apply to the compensation awarded.

                  —

                  By a primary argument, the Commission submits that the General Court was wrong to conclude that EU law was not applicable to the compensation awarded on the basis that all the events giving rise to that compensation occurred prior to accession. Rather, the award of compensation constitutes the future effects of a situation arising prior to accession within the meaning of the rules on the application of EU law ratione temporis.

                  —

                  By a subsidiary argument, the Commission submits that even if the General Court was right to conclude that the award of compensation did not constitute the future effects of a situation arising prior to accession (quod non), EU law still applied to the compensation awarded because the 1995 Europe Agreement, which forms part of EU law, was applicable to all the events giving rise to that compensation that occurred pre-accession.

            By a third ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error in law consisting of the misinterpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU and a failure to apply Article 64(1)(iii) of the 1995 Europe Agreement, by concluding that the contested decision erroneously classified the award of compensation by the arbitral tribunal as an advantage.

                  —

                  First, the General Court was wrong to conclude that the Commission lacked the competence to adopt the contested decision and that EU law was inapplicable to the compensation awarded.

                  —

                  Second, the General Court failed to address all arguments presented in the contested decision establishing that Romania conferred an advantage on the Miculas. The arguments not addressed suffice on their own to justify the presence of an advantage.

         (1)  EU:T:2019:423

         (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2005, L 157, p. 203).

         (3)  Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (OJ 2015, L 232, p. 43).

         (4)  Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part (OJ 1994, L 357, p. 2).


title: Corrigendum to Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages) (OJ C 459, 20.12.2018)

text:
               28.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 466/30

      Corrigendum to Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)
      (
            Official Journal of the European Union C 459 of 20 December 2018
         )
      (2018/C 466/15)
      On page 47, and on the cover, in the title:

         for:

         ‘Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS’,

         read:

         ‘Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS’.


title: Case T-627/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ATMvision v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/53

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ATMvision v Commission
      (Case T-627/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/68)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: ATMvision AG (Salem, Germany) (represented by: initially, A. Cordewener, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, then, F. Kutt and C. Jehke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche, M. Adam and M. Noll0Ehlers, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Noll-Ehlers and finally, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by ATMvision AG;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-375/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games according to the sole concessionaire model — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/9

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
      (Case C-375/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games according to the sole concessionaire model - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
      (2019/C 65/10)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

         Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

         Interveners in support of the defendants: Lottomatica SpA, Lottoitalia Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which provide, for the concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games, a sole concessionaire model, unlike other games, prediction games and betting, to which a multiple concessionaire model applies, provided that the national court establishes that the national rules actually pursue, in a consistent and systematic manner, the objectives relied on by the Member State concerned.

                  2.

                  Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national rules and the relevant implementing acts, such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which provide, for the concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games, a high basic contract value, provided that that value is formulated in a clear, precise and unambiguous manner and that it is objectively justified, which is for the national court to determine.

                  3.

                  Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, contained in a model concession contract relating to a call for tenders and which provides for the withdrawal of the concession for management of the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games:

                              —

                              for any type of offence in relation to which indictment is provided for and which, because of its nature, seriousness, method of commission and connection with the activity for which the concession was awarded, the contracting authority takes the view that it is such as to preclude the concessionaire possessing the requisite reliability, professionalism and moral quality,

                              —

                              or if the concessionaire infringes the rules on the prevention of irregular, unlawful and covert gaming and, in particular, where the concessionaire itself, or a company controlled by or linked to it, wherever located, markets other games comparable to the computerised Lotto and other fixed-odds numerical games, without possessing the requisite licence,

                        provided that those clauses are justified and are proved to be proportionate to the objective pursued and comply with the principle of transparency, which is for the national court to determine in the light of the guidance set out in the present judgment.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-102/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 65(2) — European Certificate of Succession — Application for a certificate — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 — Mandatory or optional nature of the form established by Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/18

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch
      (Case C-102/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 65(2) - European Certificate of Succession - Application for a certificate - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 - Mandatory or optional nature of the form established by Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014))
      (2019/C 93/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession and Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of an application for a European Certificate of Succession, within the meaning of Article 65(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the use of Form IV in Annex 4 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 is optional.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-8/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Criminal proceedings against RH

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/35

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Criminal proceedings against RH
      (Case C-8/19)
      (2019/C 93/46)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Party to the main proceedings

      RH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is an interpretation of national law, namely Article 489(2) of the NPK, which requires the referring court to adjudicate immediately on the legality of pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings instead of waiting for an answer from the Court of Justice when the referring court has made a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the legality of that detention, consistent with Article 267 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?

            If the first question is answered in the negative:

                  2.1.

                  Taking account of the final sentence of recital 16 of Directive 2016/343, (1) must the national court interpret its national law as meaning that, before issuing a decision extending a pre-trial detention, it must ‘verify that there are sufficient elements of incriminating evidence against the suspect or accused person to justify the decision concerned’?

                  2.2.

                  If the accused person’s defence counsel challenges the existence of ‘sufficient elements of incriminating evidence’, with full and well founded arguments, in the context of the judicial review of the extension of the pre-trial detention, is the national court required to give a response, in accordance with the requirement of an effective remedy provided for in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter?

                  2.3.

                  Does the national court infringe Article 4 [of Directive 2016/343], read together with Article 3 [thereof], as interpreted in the judgment [of 19 September 2018, Milev (C-310/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:732)], if it justifies its decision on the extension of the pre-trial detention in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention and clearly identifies the existence of evidence in support of the charge which, by nature ‘would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned might have committed an offence’, and Article 5(4) of the Convention, in particular, by giving a decision on the objections of the accused person’s defence counsel on the legality of the pre-trial detention which is effective and based on the facts?

         (1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings

         OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.


title: Case C-560/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2018 by Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2018 in Case T-514/15: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/10

      Appeal brought on 3 September 2018 by Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2018 in Case T-514/15: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission
      (Case C-560/18 P)
      (2019/C 112/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (represented by: P. Hoffman, adwokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Poland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2018 in case T-514/15 Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 June 2015, GESTDEM 2015/1291, refusing the appellant access to the detailed opinion issued by the European Commission in the framework of the notification procedure 2014/537/PL, and the decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2015, GESTDEM 2015/1291, refusing the appellant access to the detailed opinion issued by the Republic of Malta in the framework of the notification procedure 2014/537/PL, and order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the appellant; or,

                  —

                  in the alternative, if the Court of Justice does not consider that the state of the proceedings permits it to give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union and reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appeal is based on the following grounds:

                  —

                  That the General Court erred in law both (i) when it held, in paragraphs 30 and 32 of the order under appeal, that it is unlikely that the unlawfulness alleged by the appellant in the action will recur in the future and that the appellant has no interest in pursuing the action, and (ii) when it held, in those same paragraphs, that the relevant issue in this context is whether it is likely that, in the future, a situation will occur in which a draft law is notified to the Commission addressing its concerns regarding existing legislation of the notifying Member State which is the subject of pending infringement proceedings, and in which the Commission refuses access to a detailed opinion delivered on the basis of directive 98/34 (1) which pertains to that draft law, justifying this by a general presumption of non-disclosure following from the need to protect the purpose of those infringement proceedings, while, in law, the relevant issue is not whether such a specific situation is likely to recur, but instead whether the interpretations of regulation 1049/2001 (2) or of directive 98/34 invoked by the Commission and complained about in the appellant’s action are likely to be applied by the Commission in the future.

                  —

                  That the General Court erred in law when it held, in paragraph 33 of the order under appeal, that the need to adjudicate in a case concerning the Commission’s refusal to disclose documents due to an alleged ‘inextricable link’ between them and pending infringement proceedings and in which the oral procedure was closed cannot follow from the need to afford the applicant effective judicial protection and from the fact that, absent adjudication, the Commission will be able to escape judicial review of its decision, because otherwise any applicant whose request for access to documents was initially refused could seek a ruling against the Commission even if the request was granted after the action before the General Court was brought.

                  —

                  That the General Court erred in law when, in paragraph 34 of the order under appeal, it held, even though the action brought by the appellant against the contested decisions had proceeded for almost 3 years and included multiple pleadings as well as a hearing, that closing the proceedings and requiring the appellant or its members to once again, this time in the framework of an action for damages against the Commission, argue the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, would not put an unjustifiable burden on them.

                  —

                  That the General Court erred in law when, in paragraph 34 of the order under appeal, it held that no need to adjudicate exists based on the appellant’s or its members’ claims for damages caused by the contested decisions, merely because (i) the appellant failed to specify whether it or its members ‘truly’ intend to pursue such claims, (ii) it did not rely on precise, specific and verifiable evidence as to the effects of the contested decisions, and (iii) it did not provide details as to the convictions that followed from the refusal to grant access to documents, and even though (iv) the General Court at the same time ordered the appellant to bear its own costs, which costs thus formed specific and certain damage caused to the appellant by the contested decisions.

                  —

                  That the General Court erred in law when it held, in paragraph 34 of the order under appeal, that the appellant has no interest in pursuing the action, even though annulment of the contested decisions is necessary to make good the non-material harm inflicted on the appellant as a professional organization, and no other means of making good such harm exist.

         (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998, L 204, p. 37).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-789/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2018 — AQ and Others v Corte dei Conti and Others

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2018 — AQ and Others v Corte dei Conti and Others
      (Case C-789/18)
      (2019/C 112/30)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: AQ and Others

         Defendants: Corte dei Conti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Imps-Gestione

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Article 3(2) and (3) TEU, Articles 9, 45, 126, 145, 146 and 147 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 151 TFEU, Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 3 and 5 of the European Pillar of Social Rights preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013, in so far as that provision encourages Italian public administrative authorities to give preference, when recruiting or when awarding contracts, only to workers who already hold a pension provided by Italian public social security bodies?

                  2.

                  Do Articles 106(1) and 107 TFEU preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013, which permits Italian public administrative authorities engaged in economic activity, subject to compliance with Article 101 et seq. TFEU, to make use of the work of persons who have agreed to waive, in full or in part, the corresponding remuneration, thereby obtaining a cost saving likely to place those administrative authorities at a competitive advantage in relation to other economic operators?

                  3.

                  Do Articles 2, 3 and 6 TEU, Article 126 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 151 TFEU, Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 3 and 7(a) of the European Pillar of Social Rights preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013, which, under the conditions laid down therein, accepts that a worker may validly waive remuneration, in full or in part, even if that waiving is solely in order to avoid losing work?

                  4.

                  Do Articles 2, 3 and 6 TEU, Articles 14, 15(1) and 126 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 151 TFEU, Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the European Pillar of Social Rights preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013, which, under the conditions laid down therein, enables a person to work for an Italian public administrative authority while waiving, in full or in part, the corresponding remuneration, even if no provision is made for any change in the working arrangements in the light of such waiving, either in terms of working time or from the perspective of the quantity and quality of work required and the resulting responsibilities, and thus even if the partial waiving of remuneration entails a significant change to the mutual working agreement, both from the point of view of the correlation between the remuneration and the quality and quantity of work provided and because the worker is thereby ultimately compelled to carry out his activities under sub-optimal working conditions, which lay the foundations for a lower degree of commitment to the work and for a reduced level of efficiency on the part of the administrative authority?

                  5.

                  Do Articles 2, 3 and 6 TEU, Article 126 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 151 TFEU, Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 6 of the European Pillar of Social Rights preclude the combined provisions of Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013 and Article 23b(1) of Decree-Law No 201/2011, converted into Law No 214/2011, in so far as those provisions enable/require an Italian public administrative authority, including while the employment or working relationship is ongoing, to reduce the remuneration due to the worker on the basis of fluctuations in the remuneration ceiling to which Article 23b(1) of Decree-Law No 201/2011, converted into Law No 214/2011, refers, and thus as a result of an unforeseeable event, and in any case by applying a mechanism that is not immediately comprehensible and regardless of the information provided to the worker at the beginning of the employment relationship?

                  6.

                  Do Articles 2, 3 and 6 TEU, Articles 8 and 126 TFEU, Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 10 and 15 of the European Pillar of Social Rights preclude a provision of national legislation, such as Article 1(489) of Law No 147/2013, which, under the conditions laid down therein, requires Italian public administrative authorities to reduce the remuneration due to their employees and workers who hold a pension provided by a public social security body, penalising such workers for reasons connected with the availability of other sources of income, thereby discouraging the extension of working life, private economic initiative and the creation and accumulation of private income, even though these are valuable national resources?


title: Case C-577/17: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, parties involved in the proceedings: Clinton Osas Alake alias Klenti Solim and Others

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/39

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, parties involved in the proceedings: Clinton Osas Alake alias Klenti Solim and Others
      (Case C-577/17) (1)

      (2019/C 112/45)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-67/19: Action brought on 5 February 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/46

      Action brought on 5 February 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)
      (Case T-67/19)
      (2019/C 112/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dokkio, Inc. (San Mateo, California, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark DOKKIO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 308 971

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 in Case R 1187/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision to the extent that it rejects opposition B 2800087;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV;

                  —

                  order Dokkio, Inc. to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-349/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (General block exemption regulation) — Article 8(2) — Aid with an incentive effect — Concept of ‘start of work on the project’ — Powers of the national authorities — Unlawful aid — No decision of the European Commission or of a national court — Obligation on the national authorities to recover unlawful aid on their own initiative — Legal basis — Article 108(3) TFEU — General principle of EU law of protection of legitimate expectations — Decision of the competent national authority granting aid under Regulation No 800/2008 — Knowledge of circumstances excluding the eligibility of the aid application — Creation of a legitimate expectation — None — Limitation — Aid co-financed from a structural fund — Applicable legislation — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — National legislation — Interest — Obligation to claim interest — Legal basis — Article 108(3) TFEU — Applicable legislation — National rules — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium
      (Case C-349/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (General block exemption regulation) - Article 8(2) - Aid with an incentive effect - Concept of ‘start of work on the project’ - Powers of the national authorities - Unlawful aid - No decision of the European Commission or of a national court - Obligation on the national authorities to recover unlawful aid on their own initiative - Legal basis - Article 108(3) TFEU - General principle of EU law of protection of legitimate expectations - Decision of the competent national authority granting aid under Regulation No 800/2008 - Knowledge of circumstances excluding the eligibility of the aid application - Creation of a legitimate expectation - None - Limitation - Aid co-financed from a structural fund - Applicable legislation - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - National legislation - Interest - Obligation to claim interest - Legal basis - Article 108(3) TFEU - Applicable legislation - National rules - Principle of effectiveness)
      (2019/C 148/03)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Eesti Pagar AS

         Defendants: Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that ‘work on the project or activity’, within the meaning of that provision, started when a first order of equipment required for that project or that activity was made by means of entering into an unconditional and legally binding commitment before the submission of the aid application, regardless of any costs of resiling from that commitment.

                  2.

                  Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that that provision requires the national authority to recover on its own initiative aid that it has granted pursuant to Regulation No 800/2008 when it finds, subsequently, that the conditions laid down by that regulation were not satisfied.

                  3.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority cannot, where it grants aid while misapplying Regulation No 800/2008, cause the beneficiary of that aid to hold a legitimate expectation that that aid is lawful.

                  4.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national authority has granted aid from a structural fund while misapplying Regulation No 800/2008, the limitation period applicable to the recovery of the unlawful aid is, if the conditions for the application of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests are satisfied, four years, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the latter regulation or, if not, the period laid down by the applicable national law.

                  5.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national authority undertakes on its own initiative to recover aid which it has wrongly granted under Regulation No 800/2008, it is the duty of that authority to claim interest from the beneficiary of that aid in accordance with the rules of the applicable national law. In that regard, Article 108(3) TFEU requires that those rules should be such as to ensure full recovery of the unlawful aid and that, therefore, the beneficiary of that aid must be ordered to pay, inter alia, interest for the whole of the period over which it benefited from that aid and at a rate equivalent to that which would have been applied if the beneficiary had had to borrow the amount of the aid at issue on the market within that period.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-620/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Decision 2014/699/EU — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 4(3) TEU — Admissibility — Effects of the conduct criticised on the expiry date of the time limit set in the reasoned opinion — Ongoing effects on the unity and consistency of the European Union’s international action — Sufficiency of the measures taken by the Member State concerned in order to comply with the reasoned opinion — Vote by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Union position laid down in Decision 2014/699/EU at the 25th session of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) Revision Committee and opposition expressed by that Member State against that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights as defined in that decision)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-620/16) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Decision 2014/699/EU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Article 4(3) TEU - Admissibility - Effects of the conduct criticised on the expiry date of the time limit set in the reasoned opinion - Ongoing effects on the unity and consistency of the European Union’s international action - Sufficiency of the measures taken by the Member State concerned in order to comply with the reasoned opinion - Vote by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Union position laid down in Decision 2014/699/EU at the 25th session of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) Revision Committee and opposition expressed by that Member State against that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights as defined in that decision)
      (2019/C 187/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, L. Havas, J. Hottiaux and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, by having, at the 25th session of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) Revision Committee, voted against the position laid down in Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union at the 25th session of the OTIF Revision Committee as regards certain amendments to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and the Appendices thereto, and having publicly opposed that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights provided for therein, failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 4(3) TEU;

                  2.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-621/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania (Appeal — Rules on languages — Open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Notice of competition — Administrators (AD 5) — Administrators (AD 6) in the field of data protection — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to English, French and German — Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service — Judicial review)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania
      (Case C-621/16 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Rules on languages - Open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Notice of competition - Administrators (AD 5) - Administrators (AD 6) in the field of data protection - Knowledge of languages - Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the competitions to English, French and German - Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - Regulation No 1 - Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Justification - Interests of the service - Judicial review)
      (2019/C 187/05)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Lithuania

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case C-680/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission (Appeal — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 30(1) — Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Referral of a matter to the committee subject to the absence of a previous national decision — Active substance estradiol — Decision of the European Commission ordering the Member States to revoke or vary marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. v European Commission
      (Case C-680/16 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 30(1) - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Referral of a matter to the committee subject to the absence of a previous national decision - Active substance estradiol - Decision of the European Commission ordering the Member States to revoke or vary marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use)
      (2019/C 187/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel, Remedia d.o.o. (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos and by M. Šimerdová, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016, August Wolff and Remedia v Commission (T-672/14, not published, EU:T:2016:623);

                  2.

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning the marketing authorisations for high concentration of estradiol containing human medicinal products for topical use in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as that decision directs the Member States to comply with the requirements which it stipulated for the medicinal products, for which Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. hold marketing authorisation, with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use referenced and non-referenced in Annex I thereto, excluding the restriction that the medicinal products with 0.01% estradiol by weight for topical use;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, with the exception of the proceedings for interim measures, which are to be borne by Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)
      (Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)
      (2019/C 187/07)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring courts

      Tribunal Supremo and Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant/Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-70/17) and Bankia SA (C-179/17)

         Respondent/Defendants: Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed, where the removal of those elements would be tantamount to revising the content of that clause by altering its substance, and, second, as not precluding the national court from compensating for the invalidity of such an unfair term by replacing that term with the new wording of the legislative provision on which it was based, which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, provided that the mortgage loan contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

         OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case C-163/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Dublin system — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection — Concept of ‘absconding’ — Modalities of extending the time limit for transfer — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment on completion of the asylum procedure — Living conditions of beneficiaries of international protection in that Member State)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/7

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      (Case C-163/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Dublin system - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection - Concept of ‘absconding’ - Modalities of extending the time limit for transfer - Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment on completion of the asylum procedure - Living conditions of beneficiaries of international protection in that Member State)
      (2019/C 187/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Abubacarr Jawo

         Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The second sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant ‘absconds’, within the meaning of that provision, where he deliberately evades the reach of the national authorities responsible for carrying out his transfer, in order to prevent the transfer. It may be assumed that that is the case where the transfer cannot be carried out due to the fact that the applicant has left the accommodation allocated to him without informing the competent national authorities of his absence, provided that he has been informed of his obligations in that regard, which it is for the referring court to determine. The applicant retains the possibility of demonstrating that the fact that he has not informed the authorities of his absence is due to valid reasons and not the intention to evade the reach of those authorities.
                  Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings brought against a transfer decision, the person concerned may rely on Article 29(2) of that regulation, by claiming that, since he had not absconded, the six-month transfer time limit had expired.

                  2.

                  The second sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to extend the transfer time limit by a maximum of 18 months, it suffices that the requesting Member State informs the Member State responsible, before the expiry of the six-month transfer time limit, that the person concerned has absconded and specifies, at the same time, a new transfer time limit.

                  3.

                  EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the question whether Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union precludes the transfer, pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation No 604/2013, of an applicant for international protection to the Member State which, in accordance with that regulation, is normally responsible for examining his application for international protection, where, in the event of such protection being granted in that Member State, the applicant would be exposed to a substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on account of the living conditions that he could be expected to encounter as a beneficiary of international protection in that Member State, falls within its scope.
                  Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as not precluding such a transfer of an applicant for international protection, unless the court hearing an action challenging the transfer decision finds, on the basis of information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated and having regard to the standard of protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law, that that risk is real for that applicant, on account of the fact that, should he be transferred, he would find himself, irrespective of his wishes and personal choices, in a situation of extreme material poverty.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-237/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
      (Case C-237/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)
      (2019/C 187/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeals;

                  2.

                  Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

                  4.

                  Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

                  5.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-266/17 and C 267/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rhein-Sieg-Kreis (C-266/17), Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (C-267/17) v Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH (C-266/17), Kreis Heinsberg (C-267/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 5(1) and (2) — Direct award — Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and tram — Conditions — Directive 2004/17/EC — Directive 2004/18/EC)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rhein-Sieg-Kreis (C-266/17), Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (C-267/17) v Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH (C-266/17), Kreis Heinsberg (C-267/17)
      (Joined Cases C-266/17 and C 267/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and tram - Conditions - Directive 2004/17/EC - Directive 2004/18/EC)
      (2019/C 187/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

      (Case C-266/17)

         Applicant: Rhein-Sieg-Kreis

         Defendants: Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH

         Intervener: Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH (C-266/17)
      Case (C-267/17)

         Applicant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

         Intervener: WestVerkehr GmbH (C-267/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road does not apply to the direct award of contracts for public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

         OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-350/17 and C-351/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Mobit Soc. cons. arl v Regione Toscana (C-350/17), Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc. cons. arl (C-351/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Article 5 — Award of public service contracts — Article 5(2) — Direct award — Concept of ‘internal operator’ — Authority exercising similar control — Article 8(2) — Transitional arrangements — Deadline for the expiry of the direct award)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Mobit Soc. cons. arl v Regione Toscana (C-350/17), Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc. cons. arl (C-351/17)
      (Joined Cases C-350/17 and C-351/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 5 - Award of public service contracts - Article 5(2) - Direct award - Concept of ‘internal operator’ - Authority exercising similar control - Article 8(2) - Transitional arrangements - Deadline for the expiry of the direct award)
      (2019/C 187/14)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

      (Case C-350/17)

         Applicant: Mobit Soc. cons. arl

         Defendant: Regione Toscana

         Interveners: Autolinee Toscane SpA, Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) (C-350/17)
      (Case C-351/17)

         Applicant: Autolinee Toscane SpA

         Defendant: Mobit Soc. cons. arl

         Interveners: Regione Toscana, Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP) (C-351/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5 of Regulation No 1370/2007 is not applicable to an award procedure which has been carried out before 3 December 2019, so that a competent authority which awards, by an award decision closing a competitive tendering procedure, before that date, a public service concession contract for the provision of local passenger transport by road, is not required to comply with Article 5 of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-427/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Exceptional circumstances — Best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs — Principle that the costs should be proportionate — Burden of proof — Means of proof)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/14

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 — European Commission v Ireland
      (Case C-427/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Exceptional circumstances - Best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs - Principle that the costs should be proportionate - Burden of proof - Means of proof)
      (2019/C 187/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

         Defendant: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney, M. Browne and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, S. Kingston, Barrister-at-Law, C. Toland, Senior Counsel, and B. Murray, Senior Counsel)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations:

                              —

                              under Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, and section A and footnote 1 of Annex I thereto by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste water and rainwater system are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of that directive, as amended, so far as concerns the agglomerations of Athlone, Cork City, Enniscorthy apart from the townland of Killagoley, Fermoy, Mallow, Midleton, Ringaskiddy and Roscommon Town;

                              —

                              under Article 4(1) and/or (3) of Directive 91/271 as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof and section B of Annex I thereto, by not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment so far as concerns the agglomerations of Arklow, Athlone, Ballybofey/Stranorlar, Cobh, Cork City, Enfield, Enniscorthy, Fermoy, Killybegs, Mallow, Midleton, Passage/Monkstown, Rathcormac, Ringaskiddy, Ringsend, Roscommon Town, Shannon Town, Tubbercurry and Youghal;

                              —

                              under Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 91/271 as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof and section B of Annex I thereto, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the agglomerations of Athlone, Cork City, Dundalk, Enniscorthy apart from the townland of Killagoley, Fermoy, Killarney, Killybegs, Longford, Mallow, Midleton, Navan, Nenagh, Portarlington, Ringsend, Roscrea and Tralee be, before discharge into sensitive areas, made subject to treatment more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive, as amended, and in accordance with the requirements of section B of Annex I thereto; and

                              —

                              under Article 12 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, by not ensuring that the disposal of waste water from urban waste water treatment plants of the agglomerations of Arklow and Castlebridge is subject to prior regulations and/or specific authorisation;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-443/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal product for human use — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(d) — Conditions for granting — Grant of first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product — Authorisation covering a product as a medicinal product constituting a new formulation of a known active ingredient)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents
      (Case C-443/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal product for human use - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conditions for granting - Grant of first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product - Authorisation covering a product as a medicinal product constituting a new formulation of a known active ingredient)
      (2019/C 187/16)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

         Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in conjunction with Article 1(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) of that regulation, relied on in support of an application for a supplementary protection certificate concerning a new formulation of an old active ingredient, cannot be regarded as being the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product in the case where that active ingredient has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation as an active ingredient.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-444/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border control, asylum and immigration — Regulation (EU) 2016/399 — Article 32 — Temporary reintroduction of border control by a Member State at its internal borders — Illegal entry of a third-country national — Equation of internal borders with external borders — Directive 2008/115/EC — Scope — Article 2(2)(a))

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/15

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
      (Case C-444/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border control, asylum and immigration - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Article 32 - Temporary reintroduction of border control by a Member State at its internal borders - Illegal entry of a third-country national - Equation of internal borders with external borders - Directive 2008/115/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(a))
      (2019/C 187/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales

         Defendants: Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), must be interpreted as not applying to the situation of an illegally staying third-country national who was apprehended in the immediate vicinity of an internal border of a Member State, even where that Member State has reintroduced border control at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of the regulation, on account of a serious threat to public policy or internal security in that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-498/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Article 14(b) and (c) — Landfill of waste — Existing landfill sites — Infringement)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/18

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-498/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 14(b) and (c) - Landfill of waste - Existing landfill sites - Infringement)
      (2019/C 187/20)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, F. Thiran and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Palatiello, avvocato dello Stato)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by having failed to adopt, with regard to the landfill sites of Avigliano (area of Serre Le Brecce), Ferrandina (area of Venita), Genzano di Lucania (area of Matinella), Latronico (area of Torre), Lauria (area of Carpineto), Maratea (area of Montescuro), Moliterno (area of Tempa La Guarella), both landfill sites of Potenza (area of Montegrosso-Pallareta), the landfill sites of Rapolla (area of Albero in Piano), Roccanova (area of Serre), Sant’Angelo Le Fratte (area of Farisi), Campotosto (area of Reperduso), Capistrello (area of Trasolero), Francavilla (Valle Anzuca), L’Aquila (area of Ponte delle Grotte), Andria (D’Oria G. & C. Snc), Canosa (CO.BE.MA), Bisceglie (CO.GE.SER), Andria (F.lli Acquaviva), Trani (BAT-Igea Srl), Torviscosa (Caffaro (undertaking)), Atella (area of Cafaro), Corleto Perticara (area of Tempa Masone), Marsico Nuovo (area of Galaino), Matera (area of La Martella), Pescopagano (area of Domacchia), Rionero in Volture (area of Ventaruolo), Salandra (area of Piano del Governo), San Mauro Forte (area of Priati), Senise (area of Palomabara), Tito (area of Aia dei Monaci), Tito (area of Valle del Forno), Capestrano (area of Tirassegno), Castellalto (area of Colle Coccu), Castelvecchio Calvisio (area of Termine), Corfinio (area of Cannucce), Corfinio (area of Case querceto), Mosciano S. Angelo (area of Santa Assunta), S. Omero (area of Ficcadenti), Montecorvino Pugliano (area of Parapoti), San Bartolomeo in Galdo (area of Serra Pastore), Trivigano (formerly Cava Zof) and Torviscosa (area of La Valletta), all the measures necessary in order that, as soon as possible, in accordance with Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, those landfill sites in the above list which have not obtained, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, a permit to continue to operate, may be closed, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary to bring those landfill sites which have obtained a permit to continue to operate into line with that directive, without prejudice to the conditions laid down in Annex I, point 1, to that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(b) and (c) of Directive 1999/31;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case C-545/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Mariusz Pawlak v Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market of postal services — Directives 97/67/EC and 2008/6/EC — Article 7(1) — Definition of ‘exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services’ — Article 8 — Right of the Member States to organise the registered mail service used in the course of judicial proceedings — Time-limit for lodging a procedural document before a court — Interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law — Limits — Direct effect relied on by an emanation of a Member State in proceedings between it and an individual)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/19

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Mariusz Pawlak v Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego
      (Case C-545/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market of postal services - Directives 97/67/EC and 2008/6/EC - Article 7(1) - Definition of ‘exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services’ - Article 8 - Right of the Member States to organise the registered mail service used in the course of judicial proceedings - Time-limit for lodging a procedural document before a court - Interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law - Limits - Direct effect relied on by an emanation of a Member State in proceedings between it and an individual)
      (2019/C 187/21)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Mariusz Pawlak

         Respondent: Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The first sentence of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC, must be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law which recognises only the posting of a procedural document in a post office of the sole operator designated to provide the universal postal service as being equivalent to lodging a procedural document before the relevant court, without there being an objective justification based on grounds of public policy or public security.

                  2.

                  A public authority, regarded as an emanation of a Member State, cannot rely on Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, as such, against an individual.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case C-578/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oy Hartwall Ab (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) — Refusal to register or invalidity — Assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation — Classification of a trade mark — Effect — Colour mark or figurative mark — Graphic representation of a mark submitted as a figurative mark — Conditions for registration — Insufficiently clear and precise graphic representation)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/20

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oy Hartwall Ab
      (Case C-578/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) - Refusal to register or invalidity - Assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation - Classification of a trade mark - Effect - Colour mark or figurative mark - Graphic representation of a mark submitted as a figurative mark - Conditions for registration - Insufficiently clear and precise graphic representation)
      (2019/C 187/22)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Oy Hartwall Ab

         Interested party: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 2 and 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the classification as a ‘colour mark’ or ‘figurative mark’ given to a sign by the applicant on registration is a relevant factor among others for the purpose of establishing whether that sign can constitute a trade mark within the meaning of Article 2 of the directive and, if so, whether it is distinctive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that directive, but does not release the competent trade mark authority from its obligation to carry out a global assessment of distinctive character by reference to the actual situation of the mark considered, which means that that authority cannot refuse registration of a sign as a mark on the sole ground that that sign has not acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the goods or services claimed.

                  2.

                  Article 2 of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the registration of a sign as a mark due to an inconsistency in the application for registration, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case C-590/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin v Électricité de France (EDF) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Scope — Article 2(b) and (c) — Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘seller or supplier’ — Finance for the purchase of a home — Mortgage loan granted by an employer to its employee and to his spouse, the jointly and severally liable co-borrower)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/21

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin v Électricité de France (EDF)
      (Case C-590/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Article 2(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘seller or supplier’ - Finance for the purchase of a home - Mortgage loan granted by an employer to its employee and to his spouse, the jointly and severally liable co-borrower)
      (2019/C 187/23)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin

         Defendant: Électricité de France (EDF)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the employee of an undertaking and his spouse, who conclude a loan contract with that undertaking, reserved, principally, to members of staff of that undertaking, with a view to financing the purchase of real estate for private purposes, must be regarded as ‘consumers’, within the meaning of that provision;
      Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that that undertaking must be regarded as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it concludes such a loan contract in the context of its professional activity, even if granting loans does not constitute its main activity.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.