title: Case C-561/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2019 — Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2019 — Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
      (Case C-561/19)
      (2019/C 357/27)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA

         Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In accordance with Article 267 TFEU, is a national court whose decisions are not amenable to appeal required, in principle, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling on a question concerning the interpretation of EU law even where the question is submitted to it by one of the parties to the proceedings after that party has lodged its initial pleading, or even after the case has been set down for judgment for the first time, or indeed even after a reference has already been made to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling?

                  2.

                  … are Articles 115, 206 and 217 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, as interpreted by national administrative case-law, in so far as they exclude price review in the case of contracts relating to ‘special sectors’ and, in particular, in the case of contracts that have a different object from those to which Directive 2004/17/EC (1) refers but are functionally linked to one of those objects, consistent with EU law (in particular, Articles 4(2), 9, 101(1)(e), 106, 151, 152, 153 and 156 TFUE, the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, referred to in Article 151 TFEU, Articles 2 and 3 TEU and Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)?

                  3.

                  … are Articles 115, 206 and 217 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, as interpreted by national administrative case-law, in so far as they exclude price review in the case of contracts relating to ‘special sectors’ and, in particular, in the case of contracts that have a different object from those to which Directive 2004/17/EC refers but are functionally linked to one of those objects, consistent with EU law (in particular, Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 26 and 34 TFEU, and the principle of freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)?

         (1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Case C-624/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 August 2019 – K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/27

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 August 2019 – K and Others v Tesco Stores Ltd
      (Case C-624/19)
      (2019/C 357/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Watford Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: K and Others

         Defendant: Tesco Stores Ltd

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) directly effective in claims made on the basis that claimants are performing work of equal value to their comparators?

                  2.

                  If the answer to question 1 is no, is the single source test for comparability in Article 157 distinct from the question of equal value, and if so, does that test have direct effect?


title: Affaire T-603/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2019 — Lithuania v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Axis 4 ‘Leader’ — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Administrative checks — Obligation to implement a suitable system for evaluating the reasonableness of the costs — Contribution in kind in the form of unpaid voluntary work — Contribution in kind in the form of a contribution of immovable property — On-the-spot checks — Presence of documents supporting payment claims — Implementation of operations financed in accordance with the rules on public procurement)

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2019 — Lithuania v Commission
      (Affaire T-603/17) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Axis 4 ‘Leader’ - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Administrative checks - Obligation to implement a suitable system for evaluating the reasonableness of the costs - Contribution in kind in the form of unpaid voluntary work - Contribution in kind in the form of a contribution of immovable property - On-the-spot checks - Presence of documents supporting payment claims - Implementation of operations financed in accordance with the rules on public procurement)
      (2019/C 357/35)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented: initially by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič and M. Palionis, then by R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis and lastly R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

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

                  3.

                     Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-576/19: Action brought on 19 August 2019 — DV and Others v Commission

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/39

      Action brought on 19 August 2019 — DV and Others v Commission
      (Case T-576/19)
      (2019/C 357/48)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: DV and 10 other applicants (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decisions determining the number of paid annual leave days for the applicants for 2019;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, raising an objection of illegality directed against Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the same reasons as stated by the Court in the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873). According to the applicant, the defendant institution refused to apply that judgment while its effects are not suspended, which amounts to an unlawful failure to comply with a judgment of the General Court.


title: Case T-580/19: Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/40

      Action brought on 20 August 2019 – Borborudi v Council
      (Case T-580/19)
      (2019/C 357/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  cancel the decision taken by the Council on 27 May 2019, pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855, to maintain the applicant on the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;

                  —

                  order the Council to remove the applicant from the Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No. 267/2012;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council has not respected the standard of proof to sanction persons and entities in adopting and maintaining the applicant on the EU sanctions lists as the contested measures are not supported by any legitimate ground.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error of fact as Mr. Borborudi does not work for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran anymore (the ‘AEOI’), as the AEOI is not a UN sanctioned entity anymore and that the AMAD plan was halted in 2003.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error in law as it has not qualified the quantitative or qualitative significance of the alleged support of Mr. Borborudi to the Iranian nuclear program.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to substantiate the restrictive measure it has adopted against the applicant as it has not communicated the elements that would prove the ground on which he has been sanctioned.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated its obligation to communicate the documents supporting the motive, even after the applicant had asked for them.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles the European Union must abide to.


title: Case T-720/18: Order of the General Court of 23 July 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

text:
               21.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/44

      Order of the General Court of 23 July 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA
      (Case T-720/18) (1)

      (2019/C 357/53)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.


title: Case T-59/19: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council (Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/65

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-59/19) (1)

      (Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)
      (2019/C 399/81)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr Ehab Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.


title: Case C-274/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien — Austria) — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Less favourable treatment of part-time workers in relation to full-time workers as regards their conditions of employment — Prohibition — National legislation fixing a maximum duration of fixed-term employment that is longer for part-time workers than for full-time workers — Principle of pro rata temporis — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Article 2(1)(b) — Concept of indirect discrimination on the ground of sex — Article 14(1)(c) — Employment and working conditions — Article 19 — Burden of proof)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/14

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien — Austria) — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien
      (Case C-274/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Less favourable treatment of part-time workers in relation to full-time workers as regards their conditions of employment - Prohibition - National legislation fixing a maximum duration of fixed-term employment that is longer for part-time workers than for full-time workers - Principle of pro rata temporis - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Article 2(1)(b) - Concept of indirect discrimination on the ground of sex - Article 14(1)(c) - Employment and working conditions - Article 19 - Burden of proof)
      (2019/C 413/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan

         Defendant: Medizinische Universität Wien

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as regards fixed-term workers covered by that legislation, a maximum duration of employment relationships that is longer for part-time workers than for comparable full-time workers, unless such a difference in treatment is justified on objective grounds and is proportionate to those grounds, which is for the referring court to determine. Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of pro rata temporis referred to therein does not apply to such legislation.

                  2.

                  Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, as regards fixed-term workers covered by that legislation, a maximum duration of employment relationships that is longer for part-time workers than for comparable full-time workers, if it is established that that legislation adversely affects a significantly higher percentage of women in the workforce than men in the workforce, and if that legislation is not objectively justified by a legitimate aim or the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary. Article 19(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not require the party who considers himself wronged by such discrimination to submit, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, specific statistics or specific facts regarding workers affected by the national legislation at issue, if that party does not have access or only has limited access to those statistics or facts.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-285/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(1) — Temporal application — Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided — Limits — Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards — In-house transaction — Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija
      (Case C-285/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12(1) - Temporal application - Freedom of the Member States as to choice of how services are provided - Limits - Public contracts subject to so-called ‘in house’ awards - In-house transaction - Overlapping of a public contract and an in-house transaction)
      (2019/C 413/16)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija

         Other parties: UAB ‘Irgita’, UAB ‘Kauno švara’

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  A situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a public contract has been awarded by a contracting authority to a legal person over which it exercises a control similar to the control it exercises over its own departments, as part of a procedure initiated when Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts was still in force and which led to the conclusion of a contract after the date of repeal of that directive, namely 18 April 2016, falls within the scope of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18, where the contracting authority definitively resolved the question of whether it was obliged to initiate a prior competition procedure for the award of a public contract after that date.

                  2.

                  Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule of national law whereby a Member State imposes a requirement that the conclusion of an in-house transaction should be subject, inter alia, to the condition that public procurement does not ensure that the quality of the services performed, their availability or their continuity can be guaranteed, provided that the choice made in favour of one means of providing services in particular, made at a stage prior to that of public procurement, has due regard to the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency.

                  3.

                  Article 12(1) of Directive 2014/24, read in the light of the principle of transparency, must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions to which the Member States subject the conclusion of in-house transactions must be made known by means of precise and clear rules of the substantive law governing public procurement, which must be sufficiently accessible, precise and predictable in their application to avoid any risk of arbitrariness, which it is, in this case, for the referring court to determine.

                  4.

                  The conclusion of an in-house transaction which satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 12(1(a) to (c) of Directive 2014/24 is not as such compatible with EU law.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-302/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration policy — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status — Article 5(1)(a) — Stable, regular and sufficient resources)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/16

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat
      (Case C-302/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Immigration policy - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status - Article 5(1)(a) - Stable, regular and sufficient resources)
      (2019/C 413/17)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: X

         Defendant: Belgische Staat

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘resources’ referred to in that provision does not concern solely the ‘own resources’ of the applicant for long-term resident status, but may also cover the resources made available to that applicant by a third party provided that, in the light of the individual circumstances of the applicant concerned, they are considered to be stable, regular and sufficient.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-329/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Altic’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Procurement of food products — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of deduction — Possibly fictitious supplier — VAT fraud — Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier — Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 — Registration obligations of operators in the food sector — Effect on the right to deduct VAT)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/16

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Altic’ SIA
      (Case C-329/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Procurement of food products - Deduction of input tax - Refusal of deduction - Possibly fictitious supplier - VAT fraud - Requirements relating to knowledge on the part of the purchaser - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Obligations of traceability of foodstuffs and identification of the supplier - Regulations (CE) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 - Registration obligations of operators in the food sector - Effect on the right to deduct VAT)
      (2019/C 413/18)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākā tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

         Other party:‘Altic’ SIA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person who participates in the food chain from being refused the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) on the sole ground, assuming that it has been duly established, that that taxable person has not complied with his obligations under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, to identify his suppliers for the purposes of traceability of foodstuffs, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. Non-compliance with those obligations may, however, constitute one element among others which, taken together and in a consistent manner, tend to show that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud, which it is for the referring court to assess.

                  2.

                  Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the failure, by a taxable person who participates in the food chain, to ascertain that his suppliers are registered with the competent authorities, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs and Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 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, is not relevant for the purpose of determining whether the taxable person knew or should have known that he was involved in a transaction involving VAT fraud.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-378/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Recovery of undue payments — Application of the more lenient limitation rule)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/17

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal
      (Case C-378/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 3(1) - Limitation period - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Recovery of undue payments - Application of the more lenient limitation rule)
      (2019/C 413/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

         Defendant: Reinhard Westphal

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 49(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the limitation period which it lays down is determined in accordance with Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and corresponds, in the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, to the day on which the irregularity ceases.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case C-632/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Fonds du Logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Economic and monetary policy — European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union — Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 — General government sector — Captive financial institution — Definition — Company offering, under the control of a public administration, mortgage loans to households with medium or modest incomes)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/18

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Fonds du Logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)
      (Case C-632/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 - General government sector - Captive financial institution - Definition - Company offering, under the control of a public administration, mortgage loans to households with medium or modest incomes)
      (2019/C 413/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d'État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fonds du Logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL

         Defendant: Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The provisions of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a separate institutional entity placed under government control should be classified in the general government sector, within the meaning of the revised European system of accounts established by that regulation, where it has the characteristics of a captive financial institution, it is necessary to examine its exposure to economic risk in the exercise of its activity;

                  2.

                  An institutional unit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whose degree of independence from general government is limited by national legislation, under which the institutional unit does not have complete control over the management of its assets and liabilities, in so far as that government exercises control over its assets and assumes part of the risk arising from its liabilities, may be regarded as a ‘captive financial institution’ within the meaning of paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23 of Annex A to Regulation No 549/2013, provided that the control measures laid down by that national legislation may be interpreted by the national courts to the effect that the institutional unit concerned may not act independently from that government given that the latter imposes the conditions under which the institutional unit is required to act, without that unit having any margin to substantially modify those conditions on its own initiative.

         (1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.


title: Opinion 1/19: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/19

      Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
      (Opinion 1/19)
      (2019/C 413/21)
      Language of the case: all the official languages

         Applicant

      European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin, O. Hrstková Šolcová, A. Neergaard, agents, acting as Agents)

         Questions submitted to the Court

                  —

                  Do Articles 82(2) and 84 TFEU constitute appropriate legal bases for the act of the Council relating to the conclusion, in the name of the European Union, of the Istanbul Convention, or must that act be based on Articles 78(2), 82(2) and 83(1) TFEU, and is it necessary or possible to separate the decisions concerning the signature and the conclusion of the convention as a consequence of that choice of legal basis?

                  —

                  Is the conclusion by the European Union of the Istanbul Convention, in accordance with Article 218(6) TFEU, compatible with the Treaties in the absence of mutual agreement between all the Member States concerning their consent to be bound by that convention?


title: Efta court Judgment of the Court of 13 November 2019 in Case E-2/19

text:
               6.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/33

      EFTA COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 13 November 2019
      in Case E-2/19
      D and E

         (Free movement of persons – Sectoral adaptations for Liechtenstein – Right of residence – Derived right of residence for family members – Directive 2004/38/EC)

      (2020/C 40/04)
      In Case E-2/19, D and E – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 13 November 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The sectoral adaptations to Annexes V and VIII to the EEA Agreement, in particular Point III thereof, do not deprive the family member of an EEA national, who has a valid residence permit and is residing in Liechtenstein, of the right to accompany or join the EEA national in Liechtenstein on the basis of Article 7(1)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC, even though the residence permit that the EEA national in Liechtenstein holds was not granted on the basis of the system provided for in the sectoral adaptations.


title: Case C-167/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Concept — Temporal application — Direct effect — Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála
      (Case C-167/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Right to challenge a development consent decision - Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive - Concept - Temporal application - Direct effect - Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final))
      (2018/C 455/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Volkmar Klohn

         Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

         Interveners: Sligo County Council, Maloney and Matthews Animal Collections Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive which it lays down does not have direct effect. Where that article has not been transposed by a Member State, the national courts of that Member State are nonetheless required to interpret national law to the fullest extent possible, once the time limit for transposing that article has expired, in such a way that persons should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts, which falls within the scope of that article, by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result.

                  2.

                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s courts are under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive, when deciding on the allocation of costs in judicial proceedings which were ongoing as at the date on which the time limit for transposing the requirement, laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 10a, that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive expired, irrespective of the date on which those costs were incurred during the proceedings concerned.

                  3.

                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the national court called upon to rule on the amount of costs is under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive, in so far as the force of res judicata attaching to the decision as to how the costs are to be borne, which has become final, does not preclude this, which it is for the national court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-627/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 5 October 2018 — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 5 October 2018 — Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)
      (Case C-627/18)
      (2018/C 455/33)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nelson Antunes da Cunha, Lda

         Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the limitation period for the exercise of the powers to recover aid, provided for in Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, apply only to relations between the European Union and the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed, or does it apply also to relations between that Member State and the opponent, as the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market?

                  2.

                  Should it be found that that limitation period is applicable to relations between the Member State to which the decision to recover aid is addressed and the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market, must it be understood that that period is applicable only at the procedural stage, or also to the enforcement of the recovery decision?

                  3.

                  Should it be found that that limitation period is applicable to relations between the Member State to which the decision to recover aid and the beneficiary of the aid considered incompatible with the Single Market, must it be understood that that period may be interrupted by any measure concerning illegal aid adopted by the Commission or by the Member State, even where such measures have not been notified to the beneficiary of the aid to be recovered?

                  4.

                  Does Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015, together with the principles of EU law, namely the principles of effectiveness and of the incompatibility of State aid with the Single Market, preclude the application of a limitation period of a lesser duration than that laid down in Article 17 of the regulation, such as that provided for in Article 310(1)(d) of the Civil Code, to the interest accruing on the aid to be recovered?

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.


title: Case C-629/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2018 — EN, FM, GL v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2018 — EN, FM, GL v Ryanair Designated Activity Company
      (Case C-629/18)
      (2018/C 455/34)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Sofiyski gradski sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: EN, FM, GL

         Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

         Question referred

      Does Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council allow jurisdiction to be established on the basis of an agreement, concluded before a dispute arises, with regard to the examination of claims based on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ.2012 L 351, p. 1).

         (2)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-207/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common commercial policy — Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in the People’s Republic of China — Anti-dumping duty held to be incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO))

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano — Italy) — Rotho Blaas Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
      (Case C-207/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common commercial policy - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duty held to be incompatible with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)))
      (2018/C 455/18)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Bolzano

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Rotho Blaas Srl

         Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

         Operative part of the judgment

      Examination of the first question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation No 91/2009, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/519 of 26 March 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-249/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Concept of taxable person — Holding company — Deduction of input tax — Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares — Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company — Those services not provided — Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/13

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
      (Case C-249/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Concept of taxable person - Holding company - Deduction of input tax - Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares - Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company - Those services not provided - Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received))
      (2018/C 455/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

         Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 4 and 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as conferring on a company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company, the right to deduct, in full, input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out, provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-393/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ — Requirement of physical presence — Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother — Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB
      (Case C-393/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ - Requirement of physical presence - Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother - Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child))
      (2018/C 455/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UD

         Defendant: XB

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-301/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v Romania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — 2005 Act of Accession — Obligations of the accession States — Environment — Directive 1999/31/EC — Article 14(b) — Operation of landfill sites — Closure of sites which have not been granted a permit to operate a landfill — Closure and after-care procedures)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/13

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v Romania
      (Case C-301/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - 2005 Act of Accession - Obligations of the accession States - Environment - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 14(b) - Operation of landfill sites - Closure of sites which have not been granted a permit to operate a landfill - Closure and after-care procedures))
      (2018/C 455/20)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, E. Gane, L. Liţu, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, and subsequently C.-R. Canţăr, E. Gane, L. Liţu, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by having failed to comply, as regards the 68 landfill sites in question, with the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to close down as soon as possible, under Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8, a permit to continue to operate, Romania is in breach of its obligations under Article 14(b), in conjunction with Article 13, of that directive;

                  2.

                  Orders Romania to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-566/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
      (Case C-566/18)
      (2018/C 455/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Handelsgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Defendant and appellant: Austrian Airlines AG

         Applicants and respondents: MG, NF

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation if the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passengers is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellations and the associated delay?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative: how is this to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, (2) according to which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, (3) that a delay in excess of three hours is not taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?

         (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).

         (2)  EU:C:2009:716.

         (3)  EU:C:2012:657.


title: Case C-100/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission
      (Case C-100/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 - Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings))
      (2018/C 455/13)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case C-145/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia — Infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concluded in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Repeal of definitive anti-dumping duties already collected — Non-retroactive effect — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Person individually concerned — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/9

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA v European Commission
      (Case C-145/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia - Infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concluded in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Repeal of definitive anti-dumping duties already collected - Non-retroactive effect - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Person individually concerned - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures))
      (2018/C 455/14)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, abogados)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-149/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright — Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family — Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 7)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer
      (Case C-149/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright - Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family - Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7))
      (2018/C 455/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht München I

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Michael Strotzer

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as interpreted by the relevant national courts, the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection, without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case C-153/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 173 — Deduction of input tax — Vehicle hire purchase transactions — Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions — Origin and scope of the right to deduct — Proportional deduction)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/10

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd
      (Case C-153/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 173 - Deduction of input tax - Vehicle hire purchase transactions - Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions - Origin and scope of the right to deduct - Proportional deduction))
      (2018/C 455/16)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

         Defendant: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 168 and Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, first, even where the general costs relating to supplies of moveable goods by hire purchase, such as the supplies at issue in the main proceedings, are passed on not in the amount due by the customer in respect of the supply of the goods concerned, that is to say the taxable part of the transaction, but in the amount of the interest due in respect of the ‘finance’ part of the transaction, that is to say the exempt part thereof, those general costs must nonetheless be considered, for the purposes of value added tax (VAT), to be a component of the price of that supply and, second, Member States may not apply a method of apportionment which does not take account of the initial value of the goods concerned when they are supplied, since that method is not capable of ensuring a more precise apportionment than that which would arise from the application of the turnover-based allocation key.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-570/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/20

      Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament
      (Case C-570/18 P)
      (2018/C 455/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, avocate)

         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 of 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17,
                  Consequently,

                  —

                  uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, thus,

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting the appellant’s request for assistance,

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay compensation in respect of non-financial harm estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000,

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

                  —

                  Breach of the right to be heard — Breach of Article 41[(2)](a) of the Charter;

                  —

                  Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter — Distortion of the arguments of the appellant — Breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons;

                  —

                  Breach of Article 31(1) of the Charter — Infringement of Article 12a(1), (3) and (24) of the Staff Regulations.

            Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject her claim for damages on the ground that the contested decision has not been set aside.


title: Case C-504/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Articles 4 and 7 — Application of the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels — Directive 95/60/EC — Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene — Refuelling of private pleasure craft)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/15

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v Ireland
      (Case C-504/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Articles 4 and 7 - Application of the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels - Directive 95/60/EC - Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene - Refuelling of private pleasure craft))
      (2018/C 455/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, G. Hodge, J. Quaney and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by F. Callanan, Senior Counsel, and B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by not ensuring that the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity were applied to gas oil used as fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, and by permitting the use of marked fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from, or reduction in, excise duty, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Directive 2003/96 and Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene respectively;

                  2.

                  Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-610/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — ZR v EUIPO

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/28

      Action brought on 9 October 2018 — ZR v EUIPO
      (Case T-610/18)
      (2018/C 455/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the selection board’s decision of 1 December 2017 not to place the applicant on the ‘reserve list’, that is, the database of successful candidates, of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — AD 6 — Administrators in the field of intellectual property;

                  —

                  in so far as necessary, annul the selection board’s decision of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review;

                  —

                  in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the EUIPO Executive Director of 27 June 2018 and notified on 29 June 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

                  —

                  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 violation of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(a) and (c) of Annex III to those Regulations.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III to those Regulations and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Notice of Competition (‘General Rules Governing Open Competitions’).

                              —

                              The applicant relies in that regard on the allegedly irregular designation of the members of the selection board.

                              —

                              The applicant further refers to a lack of publication of the decisions appointing the selection board and of the names of all the members of the Selection Board.

                              —

                              The applicant cites non-equal representation with regard to staff committee/appointing authority representation on the selection board.

                              —

                              The applicant also cites non-equal representation on that board from a gender balance perspective.

                              —

                              Finally, in regard to that plea, the applicant alleges violation of the principle of stability and continuity of the selection board.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation, violation of the duty to state reasons and a lack of transparency.

                              —

                              The applicant claims that certain facts were omitted by the selection board, referring in that regard to the board’s evaluation of competencies as described in the notice of competition.

                              —

                              The applicant claims that certain results specified in the competency passport failed to comply with the notice of competition and complains about a lack of transparency in that respect.

                              —

                              The applicant also complains that the competency passport contained contradictory statements.


title: Case C-606/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — IBA Molecular Italy Srl v Azienda ULSS No 3 and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public supply contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) — Contract awarded outside a public procurement procedure — Definition of ‘contracts for pecuniary interest’ — Definition of ‘public entity’)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/16

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — IBA Molecular Italy Srl v Azienda ULSS No 3 and Others
      (Case C-606/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) - Contract awarded outside a public procurement procedure - Definition of ‘contracts for pecuniary interest’ - Definition of ‘public entity’))
      (2018/C 455/24)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: IBA Molecular Italy Srl

         Defendant: Azienda ULSS No 3, Regione Veneto, Ministero della Salute, Ospedale dell’Angelo di Mestre

         Intervening parties: Istituto Sacro Cuore Don Calabria di Negrar, Azienda ULSS No 22

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘contract for pecuniary interest’ includes a decision by which a contracting authority directly awards, to a specific economic operator, and therefore without organising a public tendering procedure, specific-purpose funding for the manufacture of products to be supplied free of charge by that economic operator to various authorities which are exempt from payment of any consideration to the supplier, except for the payment of a fixed sum of EUR 180 per delivery, for transport costs.

                  2.

                  Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings which, by treating private ‘classified’ hospitals as equivalent to public hospitals on account of their integration into the system of national public healthcare planning governed by special agreements that are distinct from ordinary accreditation relationships with other private parties that participate in the system of provision of healthcare services, take them outside the scope of national and EU rules on public contracts, including in cases where such classified hospitals are entrusted with the manufacture and supply, free of charge, to public healthcare establishments of specific products which are necessary for the provision of healthcare services and where, at the same time, they receive public funding specifically for the manufacture and supply of those products.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-610/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2018 — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2018 — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
      (Case C-610/18)
      (2018/C 455/31)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: AFMB Ltd and Others

         Respondent: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

         Questions referred

                  1.

                              A.

                              Must Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, an international truck driver in paid employment is to be regarded as being a member of the driving staff of:

                                          (a)

                                          the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or

                                          (b)

                                          the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office;

                                          (c)

                                          both the company under (a) and the company under (b)?

                              B.

                              Must Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer of an international truck driver in paid employment is considered to be:

                                          (a)

                                          the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or

                                          (b)

                                          the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office;

                                          (c)

                                          both the company under (a) and the company under (b)?

                  2.

                  In the event that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the undertaking referred to in Question 1A(b) and in Question 1B(b):
                  Do the specific conditions under which employers, such as temporary employment agencies and other intermediaries, can invoke the exceptions to the country-of-employment principle set out in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 also apply by analogy, wholly or in part, to the cases in the main proceedings for the purposes of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

                  3.

                  In the event that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the company referred to in Question 1A(b) and in Question 1B(b), and Question 2 is answered in the negative:
                  Do the facts and circumstances set out in this request constitute a situation that is to be interpreted as an abuse of EU law and/or an abuse of EFTA law? If so, what is the consequence thereof?

         (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

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


title: Case T-611/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/29

      Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA
      (Case T-611/18)
      (2018/C 455/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: M. Martens, N. Carbonnelle, lawyers and S. Faircliffe, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the EMA’s decision of 30 July 2018 not to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma, a generic version of Tecfidera;

                  —

                  order the EMA to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
      The contested decision refuses to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma in consideration of the fact that the reference product allegedly benefits from regulatory data protection.
      An exception of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU is directed against the decision granting marketing authorisation to the reference medicinal product insofar as it expresses a manifestly erroneous conclusion regarding that product’s difference from Fumaderm for ‘global marketing authorisation’ purposes. Under a single plea in law, the applicant submits that, the exception of illegality being admissible and well-founded, the statement of reasons of the contested decision not to validate the applicant’s application for marketing authorisation is not legally admissible under Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case C-617/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.° 3 bis de Albacete (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2018 — The borrowers v Globalcaja, S.A.

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 3 bis de Albacete (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2018 — The borrowers v Globalcaja, S.A.
      (Case C-617/18)
      (2018/C 455/32)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 3 bis de Albacete

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: The borrowers

         Defendant: Globalcaja, S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the effect of ‘shall… not be binding’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) mean that a trader and a consumer, by means of a private agreement, cannot modify, by moderating it, a term that does not meet the requirement under Article 4(2) that it must be drafted in plain intelligible language, whether by reducing the amount under that term or by replacing it with a different term that is less detrimental to the consumer?
                  Would the answer to that question be different if the modification at issue were contained in an agreement concluded between the consumer and the trader that is intended precisely to settle a dispute relating to the possible lack of transparency of a term not individually negotiated contained in an earlier agreement between those parties, without resorting to the courts?

                  2.

                  Must Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that the concepts ‘the main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other’ encompass two terms contained in an agreement not individually negotiated between a trader and a consumer, whereby, in the first place, a modification is made to a clause contained in an earlier agreement between those parties — replacing it with a different term that is less detrimental to the consumer — and whereby, in the second place, the consumer waives his right to make a claim through judicial or extrajudicial channels relating to the possible lack of transparency of that term and the effects inherent in that lack of transparency?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that ‘the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded’ and ‘all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract [at the time of conclusion of the contract]’ can be taken into account only for the purpose of assessing the fairness of terms that do not relate to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract? Or, on the contrary, can those criteria be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the transparency of terms relating to the main subject matter of the contract, to which Article 4(2) refers?

                  4.

                  If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, is national case-law compatible with Article 4(2) of the Directive — specifically with the requirements arising under that article that terms must be drafted in plain intelligible language and must be transparent — where that case-law establishes, in respect of an agreement not individually negotiated between a trader and a consumer whereby the application of a term contained in an earlier agreement between those parties is modified, that the trader is not required to inform the consumer that the term in question may lack transparency, on the ground that the factors giving rise to that lack of transparency are well known?

                  5.

                  If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must Article 4(2) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a waiver by a consumer of the right to make claims relating to the possible lack of transparency of a term not negotiated individually, through judicial or extrajudicial channels, only meets the requirement of being ‘in plain intelligible language’ if the trader has previously informed the consumer of the specific rights he is waiving and, in particular, of the actual amount he is waiving the right to claim?

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


title: Case T-615/18: Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentrosdel deporte (D)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/30

      Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentrosdel deporte (D)
      (Case T-615/18)
      (2018/C 455/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark D — Application for registration No 11 404 019

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 in Case R 2657/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-618/18: Action brought on 15 October 2018 — ZI v Commission

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/30

      Action brought on 15 October 2018 — ZI v Commission
      (Case T-618/18)
      (2018/C 455/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the JSIS;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 13 of the Joint Rules on Sickness Insurance for officials of the European Union, in so far as that article breaches Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, since it restricts the scope thereof.


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

text:
               20.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 459/47

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 17 September 2018
      in Case E-10/17
      Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS

         (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

      (2018/C 459/16)
      In Case E-10/17, Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in the context of national rules on the limitation period for claims for damages in cases where fines have been imposed under Articles 53 and 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 17 September 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

                  1.

                  The principle of equivalence requires that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly to an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority imposing a fine, in so far as those actions have a similar purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics.

                  2.

                  The principle of effectiveness does not restrict the EEA States’ right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before the EFTA Surveillance Authority has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party, as long as the application of such a limitation period does not make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring an action for damages for infringement of EEA competition rules. That assessment must take into account the special characteristics of competition cases.


title: Case C-490/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — SD v Agrárminiszter

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 July 2018 — SD v Agrárminiszter
      (Case C-490/18)
      (2019/C 25/17)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SD

         Defendant: Agrárminiszter

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the ‘reliable method’ referred to in Article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366, (1), used to determine, between 1 September and 31 December each year, [the number of] beehives, be interpreted as meaning that it is the applicant for aid who must notify the number of bee colonies and, if so, is this a reliable method?

                  2.

                  If, under Article 2 of Delegated Regulation 2015/1366, the number of beehives –– used as the basis for aid to the apiculture sector –– must be determined between 1 September and 31 December each year owing to bees’ biological characteristics, is it possible to interpret that provision as meaning that Member States may depart from this rule?

                  3.

                  If the answer is in the affirmative, may the national legislation stipulate that the number of bee colonies required is to be determined retrospectively, in January?

                  4.

                  Can the fact that [EU funds] are to be allocated for the 2017-[2019] apiculture programmes on the basis of the number of beehives notified in 2013 by the Member States in the context of the 2014-2016 apiculture programmes be interpreted as meaning that, after the period that ended on 31 December 2016, which provides the basis for the distribution of aid for 2017, the number of beehives needed in order to be allocated aid may also be determined by a different method?

                  5.

                  Can the aforementioned EU Regulation be interpreted as permitting the adoption of a national rule of law under which a de minimis aid payment is subject to a requirement that is not compatible [with EU law]? Must the aid provided for in EU law also be appropriate, in practice, for promoting beekeeping?

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 of 11 May 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to aid in the apiculture sector (OJ 2015 L 211, p. 3).