title: Case C-14/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 34 — Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses — Technical specifications — Equivalent products — Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA
      (Case C-14/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 34 - Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses - Technical specifications - Equivalent products - Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded))
      (2018/C 319/05)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM)

         Respondent: Iveco Orecchia SpA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 34(8) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark, origin or production, the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit, already in its tender, proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-372/18: Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Colombani v EEAS

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/16

      Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Colombani v EEAS
      (Case T-372/18)
      (2018/C 319/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the EEAS Director General for Budget and Administration of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017)21) establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise in so far as it does not contain the applicant’s name;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions applied by the EEAS to the promotion procedure

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging maladministration, failure to comply with the procedure prior to the adoption of the list of officials proposed for promotion and unequal treatment.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of the EEAS relating to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s merits and unequal treatment in the assessment of the seniority criterion.


title: Case C-15/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Montego Bay Convention — Article 220(6) — Powers of the coastal State — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law — Directive 2005/35/EC — Ship-source pollution — Article 7(2) — Marpol Convention 73/78 — Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit — Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel — Freedom of navigation — Protection of the marine environment — Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline, related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone — Clear objective evidence)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/5

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp. v Rajavartiolaitos
      (Case C-15/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Montego Bay Convention - Article 220(6) - Powers of the coastal State - Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law - Directive 2005/35/EC - Ship-source pollution - Article 7(2) - Marpol Convention 73/78 - Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit - Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel - Freedom of navigation - Protection of the marine environment - Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline, related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone - Clear objective evidence))
      (2018/C 319/06)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp.

         Defendant: Rajavartiolaitos

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982, and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties, for pollution offences, as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘clear objective evidence’ within the meaning of those provisions covers not only the commission of a violation, but also evidence of the consequences of that violation.

                  2.

                  The expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, it has the same meaning as the expression ‘coastline or related interests’ in Article I(1) and Article II(4) of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, concluded at Brussels on 29 November 1969, it being understood that Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also applied to non-living resources of the territorial sea of the coastal State and to any resources in its exclusive economic zone.

                  3.

                  Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that the resources of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State, within the meaning of those provisions, cover both harvested species and also species associated with them and which are dependent on them, such as animal and plant species which feed on the harvested species.

                  4.

                  It is unnecessary, in principle, to take account of the concept of ‘significant pollution’ referred to in Article 220(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when applying Article 220(6) of that convention and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, and, in particular, when assessing the consequences of a violation, such as those defined in those provisions.

                  5.

                  In order to assess the consequences of a violation, as defined in Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests, taking account inter alia of

                              —

                              the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests;

                              —

                              the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests, not only on the basis of the available scientific data, but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance(s) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume, direction, speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads

                  6.

                  The specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea area have an effect on the conditions of applicability of Article 220(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7(2) of the Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, as regards the definition and classification of the violation and, although not automatically, on the assessment of the extent of the damage that that violation has caused to the resources and related interests of the coastal State.

                  7.

                  Article 1(2) of Directive 2005/35, as amended by Directive 2009/123, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States to impose more stringent measures in accordance with international law that those laid down in Article 7(2) thereof, where international law is applicable, given that the coastal States are authorised to take other measures equivalent in scope to those laid down in Article 220(6).

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-238/18: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

      Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission
      (Case T-238/18) (1)

      (2018/C 319/36)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case C-25/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Tietosuojavaltuutettu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Scope of the directive — Article 3 — Data collected and processed by the members of a religious community in the course of their door-to-door preaching — Article 2(c) — Definition of a ‘personal data filing system’ — Article 2(d) — Definition of a ‘controller’ of the processing of personal data — Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/7

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Tietosuojavaltuutettu
      (Case C-25/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Scope of the directive - Article 3 - Data collected and processed by the members of a religious community in the course of their door-to-door preaching - Article 2(c) - Definition of a ‘personal data filing system’ - Article 2(d) - Definition of a ‘controller’ of the processing of personal data - Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
      (2018/C 319/07)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Tietosuojavaltuutettu

         In the presence of: Jehovan todistajat — uskonnollinen yhdyskunta

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the collection of personal data by members of a religious community in the course of door-to-door preaching and the subsequent processing of those data does not constitute either the processing of personal data for the purpose of activities referred to in Article 3(2), first indent, of that directive or the processing of personal data carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, within the meaning of Article 3(2), second indent, thereof.

                  2.

                  Article 2(c) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘filing system’, referred to by that provision, covers a set of personal data collected in the course of door-to-door preaching, consisting of the names and addresses and other information concerning the persons contacted, if those data are structured according to specific criteria which, in practice, enable them to be easily retrieved for subsequent use. In order for such a set of data to fall within that concept, it is not necessary that they include data sheets, specific lists or other search methods.

                  3.

                  Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it supports the finding that a religious community is a controller, jointly with its members who engage in preaching, for the processing of personal data carried out by the latter in the context of door-to-door preaching organised, coordinated and encouraged by that community, without it being necessary that the community has access to those data, or to establish that that community has given its members written guidelines or instructions in relation to the data processing.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-904/16: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Implementation of the agreement — [confidential] — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/48

      Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions
      (Case T-904/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Implementation of the agreement - [confidential] - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2018/C 328/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 11 May 2016 of the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions, in agreement with the EESC [confidential], in implementation of the amicable settlement in Case F-33/15.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Vassiliki Labiri is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-135/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users — Decision (EU) 2015/1585 — Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU — Admissibility — Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      (Case C-135/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))
      (2018/C 328/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

         Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Operative part of the judgment

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-388/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B
      (Case C-388/18)
      (2018/C 328/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt A

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: B

         Question referred

      In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) must the provision contained in point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the turnover relevant under that provision, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in accordance with Article 315 of Directive 2006/112/EC, account is to be taken of the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-205/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 and 4 — Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Penalty payment and lump sum)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/17

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-205/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 and 4 - Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum))
      (2018/C 328/20)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

                  2.

                  Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Spain must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and/or collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 12 million;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-528/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment — Mutagenesis — Directive 2001/18/EC — Articles 2 and 3 — Annexes I A and I B — Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ — Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe — New techniques/methods of mutagenesis — Risks for human health and the environment — Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties — Article 4 — Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue — Human health and environmental protection requirement — Exemption)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt
      (Case C-528/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - Mutagenesis - Directive 2001/18/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Annexes I A and I B - Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ - Techniques/methods of genetic modification conventionally used and deemed to be safe - New techniques/methods of mutagenesis - Risks for human health and the environment - Discretion of the Member States when transposing the directive - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Herbicide-tolerant plant varieties - Article 4 - Acceptability of genetically modified varieties obtained by mutagenesis for inclusion in the common catalogue - Human health and environmental protection requirement - Exemption))
      (2018/C 328/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

         Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute genetically modified organisms within the meaning of that provision.
                  Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are excluded from the scope of that directive.

                  2.

                  Article 4(4) of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that genetically modified varieties obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from the obligations laid down in that provision.

                  3.

                  Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive, in so far as it excludes from the scope of that directive organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not have the effect of denying Member States the option of subjecting such organisms, in compliance with EU law, in particular with the rules on the free movement of goods set out in Articles 34 TFEU to 36 TFEU, to the obligations laid down in that directive or to other obligations.

         (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-446/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj
      (Case C-446/18)
      (2018/C 328/36)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Nejvyšší správní soud

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant (appellant): AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

         Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

         Question referred

      Is it consistent with European Union law and in particular with the principle of VAT neutrality for a Member State to adopt a measure which makes the assessment and payment of part of a VAT deduction claimed conditional on the completion of a procedure applying to all taxable transactions in a given tax period?


title: Case T-448/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Hitachi Metals v Commission
      (Case T-448/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hitachi Metals Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by P. Crowther and C. Drew, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Hitachi Metals Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-447/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 9 July 2018 — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava
      (Case C-447/18)
      (2018/C 328/37)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: UB

         Respondent: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

         Question referred

      In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is it possible to interpret Article 1(w), Article 4 and Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, considered in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social advantages, as enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as precluding the application of a provision of national legislation pursuant to which the Slovak social security body is to take into consideration an applicant’s citizenship as a fundamental condition for the purposes of determining the right of national sports representatives to a benefit in addition to the old-age pension, even if another statutory requirement, namely the fact of having represented the legal predecessors of the State, including the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, is also part of that provision of national legislation?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-585/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 12 — Exclusion from refugee status — Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Existence of a ‘first country of asylum’, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations — Common procedures for granting international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Right to an effective remedy — Full and ex nunc examination — Scope of the powers of the court of first instance — Examination by the courts of international protection needs — Examination of grounds of inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
      (Case C-585/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 12 - Exclusion from refugee status - Persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Existence of a ‘first country of asylum’, for a refugee from Palestine, in the UNRWA area of operations - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Right to an effective remedy - Full and ex nunc examination - Scope of the powers of the court of first instance - Examination by the courts of international protection needs - Examination of grounds of inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 328/07)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Serin Alheto

         Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the processing of an application for international protection lodged by a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) requires an examination of the question whether that person receives effective protection or assistance from that agency, provided that that application has not been previously rejected on the basis of a ground of inadmissibility or on the basis of a ground for exclusion other than that laid down in the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95.

                  2.

                  The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as:

                              —

                              precluding national legislation which does not lay down or which incorrectly transposes the ground for no longer applying the ground for exclusion from being a refugee contained therein;

                              —

                              having direct effect; and

                              —

                              being applicable even if the applicant for international protection has not expressly referred to them.

                  3.

                  Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State seised at first instance of an appeal against a decision relating to an application for international protection must examine both facts and points of law, such as the applicability of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 to the applicant’s circumstances, which the body that took that decision took into account or could have taken into account, and those which arose after the adoption of that decision.

                  4.

                  Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement for a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and points of law may also concern the grounds of inadmissibility of the application for international protection referred to in Article 33(2) of that directive, where permitted under national law, and that, in the event that the court or tribunal hearing the appeal plans to examine a ground of inadmissibility which has not been examined by the determining authority, it must conduct a hearing of the applicant in order to allow that individual to express his or her point of view in person concerning the applicability of that ground to his or her particular circumstances.

                  5.

                  Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 35 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a person registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) must, if he or she is a beneficiary of effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country that is not the territory in which he or she habitually resides but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency, be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country, within the meaning of that provision, when it:

                              —

                              agrees to readmit the person concerned after he or she has left its territory in order to apply for international protection in the European Union; and

                              —

                              recognises that protection or assistance from UNRWA and supports the principle of non-refoulement, thus enabling the person concerned to stay in its territory in safety under dignified living conditions for as long as necessary in view of the risks in the territory of habitual residence.

                  6.

                  Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish common procedural standards in respect of the power to adopt a new decision concerning an application for international protection following the annulment, by the court hearing the appeal, of the initial decision taken on that application. However, the need to ensure that Article 46(3) of that directive has a practical effect and to ensure an effective remedy in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that, in the event that the file is referred back to the quasi-judicial or administrative body referred to in Article 2(f) of that directive, a new decision must be adopted within a short period of time and must comply with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the initial decision.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case C-239/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support schemes for farmers — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 23(1) — Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 — Article 66(1) — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Article 70(8)(a) — Cross-compliance — Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction — Year in which the non-compliance occurred)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/17

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter
      (Case C-239/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support schemes for farmers - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 6(1) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 23(1) - Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 - Article 66(1) - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Article 70(8)(a) - Cross-compliance - Reduction in direct payments due to non-compliance with the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to determine the percentage reduction - Year in which the non-compliance occurred))
      (2018/C 328/21)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S

         Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 146/2008, and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of payments granted or to be granted in the year during which that non-compliance occurred;
                  Article 66(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18) and Article 70(8)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in direct payments thus calculated are to be applied to payments received or to be received in the calendar year during which the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is found;

                  2.

                  The relevant EU rules applicable to the calculation of the reduction in direct payments when a farmer has not complied with the cross-compliance rules in 2007-2008, but that non-compliance was found only during 2011, are Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 for 2007 and the first three months of 2008, and Article 6(1) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation No 146/2008, for the period from April to December 2008.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-256/17: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Performance of the agreement — Error in law — Error in assessment — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/48

      Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC
      (Case T-256/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Performance of the agreement - Error in law - Error in assessment - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2018/C 328/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of EESC’s decision of 23 June 2016‘not to perform one paragraph of the amicable settlement reached by the parties before the Civil Service Tribunal’ in Case F-33/15 and the payment of EUR 250 000 in respect of material and non-material damage.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Ms Vassiliki Labiri shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-606/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Non-promotion — 2015 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 — Obligation to state reasons — Comparative merits — Seniority in the grade — Accumulated merits — Manifest errors of assessment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Pereira v Commission
      (Case T-606/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Non-promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Comparative merits - Seniority in the grade - Accumulated merits - Manifest errors of assessment))
      (2018/C 328/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Felismino Pereira (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, then N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid initially, then G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application brought pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant during the 2015 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decision rejecting his complaint.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Felismino Pereira to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-36/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-441/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission
      (Case T-441/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-250/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/51

      Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RATP v European Commission
      (Case T-250/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
      (2018/C 328/70)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

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

         Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, I. Cohen and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 1865 final of 21 March 2018, Gestdem 2017/4598, relating to partial access to documents.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed;

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-588/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/21

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
      (Case C-588/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))
      (2018/C 328/27)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

         Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case T-429/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/22

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission
      (Case T-429/18)
      (2018/C 341/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil) and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 (1);

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700, insofar as it removes the establishments of BRF SA and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA identified in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 from the lists identified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU by not stating the reasons on which the Implementing Regulation is based.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the Implementing Regulation the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defense as laid down in Article 41, second paragraph, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in denying the applicants’ right to be heard.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Articles 12(2) and 12(4)(c) of Regulation 854/2004 (2) by assessing the compliance of individual establishments and the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes the principle of non-discrimination by treating the applicants in a different way from other Brazilian exporters of poultry products in a comparable situation.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to protect public health.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Article 291(3), second paragraph of the TFEU and Articles 3(3), 10(4) and 11 of Regulation EU 182/2011 (3) by infringing essential procedural requirements laid down therein.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1)

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206)

         (3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 291)


title: Case C-502/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.
      (Case C-502/18)
      (2018/C 341/11)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Městský soud v Praze

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: CS, DR, EQ, FP, GO, HN, IM, JL, KK, LJ, MI

         Defendant: České aerolinie a.s.

         Question referred

      Is there an obligation on a Community carrier to pay compensation to passengers under Article 3(5), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the Community carrier as the contractual carrier operated the first leg of a flight with a stopover at an airport in a non-Member State, from which, under a code sharing agreement, a carrier which is not a Community carrier operated the second leg of the flight and there was a delay of more than three hours in the arrival at the final destination airport which arose exclusively in the second leg of the flight?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-20/18: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/11

      Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2018 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic
      (Case C-20/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/18)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-457/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Zotkov v Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/23

      Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Zotkov v Commission
      (Case T-457/18)
      (2018/C 341/34)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. Stankov, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                     annul Commission Decision No Ares (2018)2294884 of 30 April 2018 and review it in connection with the applicant’s claim concerning a financial allowance for his parents, after correction of the financial calculation in accordance with the pleas in law and arguments put forward by the applicant

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 in connection with the practical application of the decision in so far as it accounts for residential property, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect

                              —

                              deficiencies in the interpretation from the point of view of the specific nature (financial and economic) of the matter regulated by the Commission decision,

                              —

                              interpretation based on objectively impossible assumptions,

                              —

                              internal discrepancies between separate parts of the Commission decision, examined together, and not independently, arising from the defendant’s interpretation,

                              —

                              subjective and contentious interpretation of words, concepts and phrasing in the text of the Commission decision, which are, essentially, ambiguous from a linguistic point of view and/or from the point of view of their generally accepted meaning,

                              —

                              preference given to theoretical indicators for individual financial elements, for which practical indicators exist.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 concerning the practical application of the decision in so far as it applies a relative weighting (coefficient) to a country, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect

                              —

                              the interpretation and application of the relative weighting (coefficient) for a country to a specific element of the financial calculation contrary to its very essence and the logic of that coefficient from the point of view of financial and economic theory and practice.


title: Case C-462/18P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/2

      Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament
      (Case C-462/18P)
      (2018/C 364/03)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

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

            and accordingly:

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay the costs in full;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The first plea in law alleges the error of law of infringement of essential procedural requirements. First, the General Court’s judgments in Bilde and Montel constitute new facts, arising after the closure of the written part of the procedure, which clarified the nature and quantity of the evidence to be provided. The conditions set out in Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure were met. Second, the Court erred in law in stating that it could not recognise any facts other than those submitted to the Secretary-General. The procedure for recovery of the sum unduly paid is similar to full legal proceedings, in which any documents relevant to the proper assessment of the dispute may be adduced, even in the course of the procedure.
      The second plea in law alleges infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and of essential procedural requirements. First, the Court did not permit a fair debate in which both sides were heard since it did not require the Parliament to comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Parliament has the administrative file and OLAF file which it may benefit from as it wishes, since evidence of work may be contained in the two files but remain hidden from the applicant. Second, the Court made an error of assessment in considering the Secretary-General’s failure to grant the applicant a personal hearing to be proper conduct.
      The third plea in law alleges an error of law, an error in classifying the legal nature of the facts and evidence, discrimination, fumus persecutionis, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and lawfulness and misuse of power. First, the lack of critical analysis of the evidence provided constitutes a failure to state reasons. Second, the political rights of assistants have been undermined. Third, concerning the recovery of the sum unduly paid, the risk of the consequences of the failure to provide proof is borne first by the administration which must give justified reasons for calling into question the sum obtained. Fourth, the treatment of the Members representing the Front national by the President and Secretary-General of the Parliament was discriminatory. Finally, the refusal to provide the administrative file and OLAF file calls into question the principle of legitimate expectations, lawfulness and constitutes misuse of power.


title: Case C-493/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 July 2018 — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 July 2018 — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA
      (Case C-493/18)
      (2018/C 364/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant in cassation: UB

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

         Questions referred

                  1.

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

                  2.

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

                  3.

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

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


title: Case C-477/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 July 2018 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 July 2018 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
      (Case C-477/18)
      (2018/C 373/09)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V.

         Respondent: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the phrases ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 1 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (‘Regulation No 882/2004’) and ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 2 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the (salary) costs that may be taken into account when calculating the fees for official controls, may only be the (salary) costs of official veterinarians and official auxiliaries who perform the official inspections, or can they also include the (salary) costs of other staff employed by the Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority; ‘NVWA’) or by the private company Kwaliteitskeuring Dierlijke Sector (‘KDS’)?

                  2.

                  If the answer to question 1 is that the phrases ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 1 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 and ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 2 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 may also include the (salary) costs of other staff employed by the NVWA or KDS, under what circumstances and within which limits is there then still such a relationship between the costs incurred for that other staff and the official controls, that the reimbursement of those (salary) costs can be based on Article 27(4) and Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004?

                  3.

                              a.

                              Should the provisions of Article 27(4)(a) and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 preclude slaughterhouses from being charged fees in relation to official controls for quarter-hours requested by those slaughterhouses from the competent authorities but not actually worked for the purposes of official controls?

                              b.

                              Does the answer to question 3a also apply in the case of official veterinarians contracted by the competent authority who do not receive a salary for quarter-hours which the slaughterhouse has requested from the competent authority but in which no activities related to official controls are actually carried out, whereas the amount which the slaughterhouse is charged for quarter-hours applied for but not worked is for the benefit of the general overhead cost structure of the competent authority?

                  4.

                  Should the provisions of Article 27(4)(a) and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned Article 27(4) precludes the slaughterhouses from being charged an average rate for the activities for the purposes of official inspections performed by veterinarians employed by the NVWA and by (lower-salaried) contracted veterinary surgeons, so that slaughterhouses are charged a higher rate than is paid to the contracted veterinarians?

                  5.

                  Should the provisions of Article 26 and Article 27(4)(a), and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating the fees for official controls, costs may be taken into account for the purposes of building the buffer reserves of a private company (KDS) from which the competent authority contracts official auxiliaries, reserves which, in the event of a crisis, can be used to pay the salary and training costs of staff who actually perform the official controls as well as of staff who make it possible to perform the official controls?

                  6.

                  If the answer to the question formulated under [5] is in the affirmative: what is the maximum amount that can be accumulated in such buffer reserves and what is the length of the period which may be covered by such reserves?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.


title: Case C-445/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 July 2018 — Vaselife International BV, Chrysal International BV v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 July 2018 — Vaselife International BV, Chrysal International BV v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden
      (Case C-445/18)
      (2018/C 373/06)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Vaselife International BV, Chrysal International BV

         Respondent: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the competent authority, the College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden (Netherlands Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides; ‘the Ctgb’), authorised, after having taken a decision to re-register the reference product, whether or not of its own motion, to change the period of validity of a parallel trade permit as referred to in Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, (1) where that permit was granted before the re-registration decision, in accordance with the — later — date of the period of validity applying to the decision to re-register the reference product?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the change to the period of validity of a parallel trade permit an automatic consequence of a decision to re-register the reference product resulting from Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 itself? Is the entry of the new date of the period of validity of the parallel permit into the database of the competent authority thus a purely administrative act, or does it require a decision taken by that authority of its own motion or in response to a request?

                  3.

                  If the answer to Question 2 is that a decision must be taken, does Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and, in particular, the third paragraph of that article, apply to that decision?

                  4.

                  If Question 3 is answered in the negative, which provision(s) is/are then applicable?

                  5.

                  Can a plant protection product already be considered not to be identical within the meaning of Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 if the reference product does not (any longer) originate from the same undertaking? The Court of Justice is requested, in answering that question, also to consider whether the notion of an associated undertaking or of an undertaking operating under licence can also include an undertaking which produces the product according to the same recipe, with the consent of the right-holder. Is it relevant here whether the production process according to which the reference product and the parallel product which is to be introduced are manufactured is carried out by the same undertaking as far as the active substances are concerned?

                  6.

                  Is the mere changing of the location for the production of the reference product relevant to the assessment of whether the product is identical?

                  7.

                  If Questions 5 and/or 6 are/is answered in the affirmative, can the conclusion to be drawn therefrom (‘not identical’) be undermined by the fact that the competent authority has already established that, as regards its composition, the product has not undergone any change or has undergone only a slight change?

                  8.

                  On whom and to what extent does the burden of proof lie to show that Article 52(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 has been satisfied if the holders of the authorisation for the parallel product and for the reference product have a difference of opinion in that regard?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


title: Case T-451/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/12

      Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB
      (Case T-451/18)
      (2018/C 373/13)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicants: Panagiotis Triantafyllopoulos and 487 other applicants (Patras, Greece) (represented by: N. Ioannou, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  order the European Central Bank to provide compensation for their actual harm, as that is specified for each of them in the pleadings, amounting to EUR 83,77 per share in the company, multiplied by the number of shares of which each applicant, natural person or legal person, is the holder;

                  —

                  order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The subject-matter of this action concerns the application for reparation for harm which it is claimed was caused to the applicants as shareholders of the ‘Αchaiki Syneteristiki Τrapeza Syn. PE’ (the Achaiki Cooperative Bank) by its special liquidation, and which consists of the current actual loss, that is the value of the shares held by each of the applicants. The harm is claimed to have been caused by the inadequate auditing and supervision of the Τrapeza tis Ellados (National Bank of Greece; ‘the NBG’) with respect to Αchaiki Syneteristiki Τrapeza in the period from 1999 until 2012, but also by the inadequate auditing and supervision of the European Central Bank with respect to the NBG, and, through the latter but also directly, with respect to the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Τrapeza.
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  First plea in law: based on the facts, the criminal prosecutions that have been initiated, and national law.

                              —

                              From the year 1999 and until the revocation of the licence of the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Τrapeza by the NBG, the various administrations pillaged the bank’s assets, and diverted them to criminal purposes, wholly distinct from the lawful purposes. This took place without any ostensible adherence to the lawful procedures for the operation of a bank. The NBG is under national law the sole competent supervisory authority, with power to take all measures, for prevention, auditing and enforcement, to ensure that all that happened did not happen and did not lead to the dissipation of the bank’s assets.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: based on Article 340 TFEU.

                              —

                              Under Article 340(3) TFEU the ECB, in that it has a separate legal personality, is obliged to make good, in accordance with the gneral principles common to the laws of the Member States, any damage caused by it or by its servants in the performance of their duties.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: based on the case-law of the Court.

                              —

                              The case-law of the Court requires that there be demonstated a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. With respect to the requirement that the infringment must be sufficiently serious, the criterion laid down in the case-law for holding that that condition is satisifed is that the Community body concerned has manifestly and seriously exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it. The scale and degree of the harm that has been caused, together with the number of those harmed, can be used as a criterion in relation to whether the body involved has manifestly and seriously exceeded the limits of its discretion. It should also be pointed out that there is a sufficiently serious breach of EU law if the body has committed the fault when not exhibiting the normal degree of prudence and diligence. The ECB failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties and under its Statute to impose penalties on the NBG, because of its inadequate supervision of the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Τrapeza. The ECB for its part is responsible for checking whether the national banks of the Member States are operating in accordance with the provisions in the Treaties and in its Statute. In the event that it has not undertaken such a check we can speak of administrative inadequacies — infringement of the principle of sound managment — which could be covered if the ECB had taken the appropriate measures to ‘remind’ the NBG of its duties under the Treaties and to make it known it that it is not permissible to leave credit institutions without supervision, becaues that jeopardises the monetary stability of the European Union, which is the basic raison d’etre of the ECB. The ECB had an obligation to review whether the NBG fulfilled its obligations as a member of the European System of Central Banks, and in the event that it found that those obligations were not fulfilled, the ECB should have adopted the appropriate measures, rather than do nothing.


title: Case T-503/18: Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Haba Trading v EUIPO — Vida (vidaXL)

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/16

      Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Haba Trading v EUIPO — Vida (vidaXL)
      (Case T-503/18)
      (2018/C 373/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Haba Trading BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Schneiders and A. Brittner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vida AB (Alvesta, Sweden)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark vidaXL — Application for registration No 11 603 024

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 190/2016-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Case T-478/18: Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/13

      Action brought on 6 August 2018 — Bezouaoui and HB Consultant v Commission
      (Case T-478/18)
      (2018/C 373/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Hacène Bezouaoui (Avanne, France) and HB Consultant (Beure, France) (represented by: J.-F. Henrotte and N. Neyrinck, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the present action admissible and well founded. Consequently,

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision C(2018) 2075 final of 10 April 2018 on Case SA.46897 (2018/NN) — France presumed aid — CACES [(Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate)];

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘causality assessment’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, in that the reimbursement of costs of construction plant driving safety training by State-authorised collecting bodies (Organismes paritaires de collecte agréés, OPCAs) means a use of State resources, the result of a measure attributable to the State. Thus, the applicants argue that the decision of which they seek the annulment disregards the case-law in Pearle (judgment of 15 July 2004, Pearle and Others, C-345/02, EU:C:2004:448).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘advantage’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken by the French State in the present case give an advantage to undertakings which provides training called ‘CACES®’ (Handling Equipment Safe Operation Certificate), as opposed to those providing training called ‘PCE®’ (Machinery Driving Licence).

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the concept of ‘selectivity’ referred to in Article 107 TFEU, since the measures taken are selective in nature. This plea in law is divided into three parts:

                              —

                              first part, alleging that the OPCAs are not entitled to discriminate between the various training courses which answer the same need and which have all been recognised by the French State;

                              —

                              second part, alleging that the interventions made by the French State have the effect of deceiving the OPCAs as to the training arrangements which meet the legal requirements and which may be reimbursed;

                              —

                              third part, alleging that the difference in treatment of the two training systems (CACES® and PCE®) is not justified by the nature or general scheme of a reference system.


title: Case C-459/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 16 July 2018 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 16 July 2018 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
      (Case C-459/18)
      (2018/C 373/07)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

         Defendant: Belgische Staat

         Question referred

      Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national tax legislation pursuant to which, for the purpose of calculating the taxable profits of a company subject to full tax liability in Belgium which has a permanent establishment in another Member State, the profits of which are wholly exempt in Belgium by virtue of the application of a double taxation convention between Belgium and the other Member State:

                  —

                  the deduction for risk capital is reduced by an amount in respect of deduction for risk capital calculated with reference to the positive difference between, on the one hand, the net book value of the assets of the permanent establishment, and, on the other hand, the total liabilities that do not form part of the company’s equity capital and that are attributable to the permanent establishment and

                  —

                  the aforementioned reduction is not applied in so far as the amount of the reduction is lower than the profits of that permanent establishment,

            whereas no reduction of the deduction for risk capital is applied if that positive difference can be attributed to a permanent establishment located in Belgium?


title: Case T-484/18: Action brought on 14 August 2018 — XB v ECB

text:
               15.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/14

      Action brought on 14 August 2018 — XB v ECB
      (Case T-484/18)
      (2018/C 373/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: XB (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decisions of 6 November 2017 and 4 December 2017 informing the applicant that he was not entitled to certain allowances (household allowance, child allowances, education allowances and pre-school allowance);

                  —

                  accordingly, order the payment of the respective amounts from the requested dates onwards, increased by late interest (ECB rate + 2 points). It should be considered that corrective payments not related to the month during which they were paid should be subject to the tax to which they would have been subject had they been made at the proper time, in accordance with Regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 260/68; (1)

                  —

                  if need be, annul the decision of 5 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s grievance procedure, lodged on 29 March 2018;

                  —

                  if need be, annul the decisions of 2 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review of 15 December 2017;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s conditions of short-term employment and its rules for short-term employment are illegal (plea of illegality).

                              —

                              The ECB’s conditions of short-term employment and its rules for short-term employment infringe, first, the rights of the child and the principles of family protection and non-discrimination laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, second, the principle of non-discrimination between temporary and permanent workers, and, third, the principle of non-discrimination and of equality of taxpayers.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a violation of collective rights, as a result of lack of proper consultation of the ECB Staff Committee in the adoption of the ECB’s conditions and rules for short-term employment.

         (1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 37).