title: Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Advantages linked to the formation of a single tax entity — Exclusion of cross-border groups)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Advantages linked to the formation of a single tax entity - Exclusion of cross-border groups))
   (2018/C 134/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X BV (C-398/16), X NV (C-399/16)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan taken out with a related company in order to finance a capital contribution to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas if the subsidiary were established in the same Member State, the parent company could avail itself of that deduction by forming a tax-integrated entity with it.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct from its profits capital losses derived from fluctuations in the exchange rate, in connection with the value of its shares in a subsidiary established in another Member State, where the same legislation does not provide, symmetrically, for tax to be levied on capital gains derived from those fluctuations.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-727/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach (Poland) lodged on 29 December 2017 — ECO-WIND Construction S.A., established in Warsaw v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach (Poland) lodged on 29 December 2017 — ECO-WIND Construction S.A., established in Warsaw v Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach
   (Case C-727/17)
   (2018/C 134/19)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: ECO-WIND Construction S.A., established in Warsaw

      Public administrative authority: Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 1(1)(f) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (1) … be interpreted as meaning that a statutory provision which introduces a restriction on the location of wind farms by establishing a minimum distance between a wind farm and a residential building or mixed-use building used for residential purposes, stating that this distance is to be equal to or greater than ten times the height of the wind farm measured from ground level … to the highest point of the structure, including technical elements, in particular the rotor and rotor blades, is a ‘technical regulation’, a draft of which should be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 5(1) of that directive?

               2.

               Should Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (2) … be interpreted as meaning that a statutory provision which introduces a restriction on the location of wind farms by establishing a minimum distance between a wind farm and a residential building or mixed-use building used for residential purposes, stating that this distance is to be equal to or greater than ten times the height of the wind farm measured from ground level to the highest point of the structure, including technical elements, in particular the rotor and rotor blades, is a provision that makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to territorial restrictions, in particular in the form of limits fixed according to a minimum geographical distance between providers, of which a Member State is to notify the Commission pursuant to Article 15(7) of that directive?

               3.

               Should the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (3) … be interpreted as precluding national legislation which introduces a restriction on the location of wind farms by establishing a minimum distance between a wind farm and a residential building or mixed-use building used for residential purposes, stating that this distance is to be equal to or greater than ten times the height of the wind farm measured from ground level to the highest point of the structure, including technical elements, in particular the rotor and rotor blades?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

      (3)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.


title: Case T-82/18: Action brought on 13 February 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/27

         Action brought on 13 February 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)
   (Case T-82/18)
   (2018/C 134/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark HUSKY in the colours of blue, black and white — Application for registration No 4 442 431

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 in Case R 812/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal did not properly take into consideration arguments and evidence submitted by the applicant and, therefore, it incorrectly considered what earlier rights the opposition was based on.


title: Case C-9/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn
   (Case C-9/18)
   (2018/C 134/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Accused party: Detlef Meyn

      Question referred

   Does the obligation of recognition under Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) — the third driving licences directive (‘the Driving Licences Directive’) — also apply following the exchange of a driving licence by a Member State of the European Union without a test of fitness to drive, in the case where the previous driving licence is not subject to the obligation of recognition (in this case: the previous licence issued by another Member State of the European Union was for its part based on the exchange of a driving licence from a third country (third sentence of Article 11(6) of the Driving Licences Directive))?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Case T-51/18: Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Kleani v Court of Justice

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/22

         Action brought on 30 January 2018 — Kleani v Court of Justice
   (Case T-51/18)
   (2018/C 134/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Efterpi Kleani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Tassi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20172046) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision was not accompanied by either a determinate set of criteria establishing the quality level of translations requested in the tender procedure or any kind of a correction sheet or a comparative report which might substantiate why, in the defendant’s view, the test translation submitted by the applicant failed to attain the minimum benchmark required. The applicant argues, in that regard, that the contested decision was not properly reasoned and that the selection procedure lacked transparency.


title: Case T-83/18: Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CH v Parliament

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/28

         Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CH v Parliament
   (Case T-83/18)
   (2018/C 134/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CH (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application admissible;

               —

               Order the defendant to produce the findings of the APA Committee, the minutes of the testimony of the witnesses heard by the APA Committee and the file sent to the President of the European Parliament under Article 10 of the internal rules of the APA Committee;

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay EUR 68 500 in compensation for the applicant’s various non-pecuniary losses;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sound administration, the right to be heard and the rights of the defence, the duty of care, which vitiates the contested decision in this case, namely the decision of the European Parliament to reject the applicant’s application for assistance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of Article 31 of the Charter, Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the duty of care.


title: Case T-61/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/23

         Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission
   (Case T-61/18)
   (2018/C 134/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule:

               —

               principally, that the Commission is ordered to remedy the losses suffered and therefore to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 68 831 in respect of his pecuniary loss and EUR 100 000 in respect of his non-pecuniary loss;

               —

               in the alternative, that the decision of 28 March 2017 refusing assistance is annulled;

               —

               in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant alleges, principally, that the Commission committed a faute de service in disregarding his status as a whistle-blower, which caused the applicant pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm which it is for the institution to remedy. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the institution failed to have regard to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by refusing to grant him the assistance provided for in that article after the criminal proceedings.


title: Case C-545/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited v Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Motor vehicles for the transport of goods — Subheadings 8704 10 10 and 8704 21 91 — Regulation (EU) 2015/221 — Validity)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited v Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-545/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Motor vehicles for the transport of goods - Subheadings 8704 10 10 and 8704 21 91 - Regulation (EU) 2015/221 - Validity))
   (2018/C 134/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kubota (UK) Limited, EP Barrus Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

   The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/221 of 10 February 2015 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-572/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Decision 2011/278/EU — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020 — Allocation application — Incorrect data — Correction — Mandatory time limit)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-572/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Decision 2011/278/EU - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Allocation application - Incorrect data - Correction - Mandatory time limit))
   (2018/C 134/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, for the submission of an application for free allocation of emission allowances for the period 2013-2020, a mandatory time limit after which the applicant has no means of correcting or supplementing its application, since that time limit is not liable to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the submission of such an application.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case C-533/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 — Right to deduct VAT — Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Article 178(a) — Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT — Limitation period — Principle of fiscal neutrality — VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question — Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-533/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 to 171 - Right to deduct VAT - Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund - Article 178(a) - Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Detailed rules for the refund of VAT - Limitation period - Principle of fiscal neutrality - VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question - Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods))
   (2018/C 166/13)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG

      Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the value added tax (VAT) was charged to the taxable person and paid by it several years after delivery of the goods in question, the benefit of the right to claim a refund of VAT is denied on the grounds that the limitation period provided for by that legislation for the exercise of that right began to run from the date of supply and expired before the application for a refund was submitted.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-194/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/42

         Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)
   (Case T-194/18)
   (2018/C 166/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BonNatura — Application for registration No 14 038 491

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 949/2017-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-137/18: Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/35

         Action brought on 2 March 2018 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)
   (Case T-137/18)
   (2018/C 166/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chrome Hearts LLC (Hollywood, California, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

      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: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross) — Application for registration No 13 845 871

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 766/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO (and Intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 2017/1001, in as far as the contested goods ‘air fragrancing preparations’ and ‘dentifrices’ is concerned.


title: Case T-806/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE — Earlier national word mark TORRES — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               14.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 166/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)
   (Case T-806/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLOS DE LA TORRE - Earlier national word mark TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 166/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agricola J.M., SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: J. Clos Creus, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 2099//2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Agricola J.M.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agricola J.M., SL to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


201806080251931402018/C 221/217212016TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180508181922Case T-721/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN1820120180508EN0021182192Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2018 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)
   (Case T-721/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/21Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Luxottica Group SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Xian Chen (Wenzhou, China)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group and Mr Chen.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            The decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group SpA and Xian Chen, is annulled;

            2.

            EUIPO is ordered to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


201806080351931392018/C 221/251882017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504212222Case T-188/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Coil Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2120120180504EN0025212222Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)
   (Case T-188/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Coil Liner — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 221/25Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 443/2016 –1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Coil Liner as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 January 2017 (Case R 443/2016–1);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG in the proceedings before the General Court.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


201806150531955352018/C 231/502712018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503394021Case T-271/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Mauritsch/INEA
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3910120180503EN0050391402Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Mauritsch/INEA
   (Case T-271/18)2018/C 231/50Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Mauritsch (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

      Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul, first, the defendant’s decision of 24 January 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 4 October 2017, and, second, its decision of 2 August 2017, rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation, filed on 10 April 2017;

            —

            order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material prejudice allegedly suffered as a result of the defendant’s fault, amounting to the loss of his entitlement to unemployment benefits for a period of maximum three years, increased by the relevant interest rate; and

            —

            order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a plea in law to the effect that the defendant failed to provide him with proper and clear information about his social security rights in the event of his refusal to sign the contract renewal. The applicant argues that he was not in a position to know that his refusal to sign the contract would be treated as resignation. Thus, the applicant was deprived of information and the defendant breached its duty of care and the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


201806150321954852018/C 231/091752018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803068921Case C-175/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2018 by PTC Therapeutics International Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-718/15: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN810120180306EN00098192Appeal brought on 6 March 2018 by PTC Therapeutics International Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-718/15: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)
   (Case C-175/18 P)2018/C 231/09Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (represented by: G. Castle, Solicitor, B. Kelly, Solicitor, K. Ewert, Rechtsanwalt, M. Demetriou QC, C. Thomas, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            grant PTC’s appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court;

            —

            annul the decision communicated by the EMA to PTC on 25 November 2015 to release certain information under the Transparency Regulation (
                  1
               );

            —

            remit the said decision back to the EMA for further consideration regarding redaction of confidential passages for consultation with PTC; and

            —

            order the EMA to pay PTC’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment should be annulled for the following reasons:

            —

            the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue were protected by a general presumption of confidentiality;

            —

            the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue in their entirety constitute commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation;

            —

            the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue should be protected by Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation; and

            —

            the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).


201806150651955232018/C 231/582962018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507454622Case T-296/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4520120180507EN0058452462Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission
   (Case T-296/18)2018/C 231/58Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the European Commission’s decision;

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty, in so far as they relate to, and directly or indirectly regulate, the conditions for consenting to mergers, including, in particular, Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty and the provisions for their implementation, including, in particular, Article 6(1)(b) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 139/2004, by failing to carry out a full assessment of the negative effects of the concentration on competition, including, inter alia, an assessment of the effects of the concentration on the relevant markets determined on the basis of the O&D model. An assessment of the concentration within the O&D model, however, would bring to light a series of distortions of competition caused by that concentration.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly assessed the effects of the concentration in relation to the possibility of providing passenger air transport services and in relation to the airports concerned by the concentration, thereby committing a gross and manifest error of assessment. A properly conducted analytical examination of the concentration would necessarily lead to the conclusion that its realisation will give rise to a series of negative effects on competition, including the creation of a dominant position for Lufthansa at certain airports.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Regulation No 95/93 by infringing the principles of neutrality, transparency and non-discrimination in relation to the allocation of slots at certain airports.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers by failing to examine whether the alleged efficiency gains occasioned by the Transaction counteract its negative effects on competition.

            5.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty and the provisions for their implementation by imposing obligations on Lufthansa which do not counteract the significant distortion of competition caused by the Transaction.

            6.

            Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the provisions of the Treaty, including Article 107(1) TFEU, and the provisions for their implementation by failing to take into consideration the distortion of competition in the internal market occasioned by the Transaction in the context of the State aid granted to Air Berlin.

            7.

            Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its Decision.


201806150871955082018/C 231/308602016TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515252511Case T-860/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2510120180515EN0030251251Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO (mycard2go)
   (Case T-860/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark mycard2go — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 231/30Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 (Case R 281/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign mycard2go as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Wirecard AG to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


201806290691986822018/C 249/452742018TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430353622Case T-274/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Klymenko v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN3520120180430EN0045352362Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Klymenko v Council
   (Case T-274/18)2018/C 249/45Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            uphold Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko’s action;

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

            —

            annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

            —

            order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            Failure to state the reasons for the contested measures.

            2.

            Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

            3.

            Absence of a legal basis, since Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide a legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against Mr Klymenko.

            4.

            Factual errors in that Mr Klymenko has provided evidence proving the lack of a sufficient factual basis for bringing criminal proceedings.

            5.

            Breach of the fundamental right to property, which is a fundamental principle of EU law enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 March 2018 in Case E-4/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public procurement — Public contract — Public works concession)

text:
               26.7.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 264/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 21 March 2018
      in Case E-4/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public procurement — Public contract — Public works concession)

      (2018/C 264/10)
      In Case E-4/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by incorrectly classifying a public contract, having as its subject matter the construction and operation of an underground car park under Torvet in Kristiansand, as a ‘service concession’ rather than as a ‘works concession’, and by carrying out a tender procedure which is not in line with the requirements under the EEA rules on public procurement, the Kingdom of Norway has breached provisions of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XVI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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) in conjunction with the Act referred to at point 6a of Annex XVI to the Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV)), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Nicole Kaiser (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 21 March 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has, in relation to a tender procedure carried out by the Municipality of Kristiansand in 2015 for the construction and operation of an underground car park under Torvet in Kristiansand, failed to fulfil its obligations under 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, referred to at point 2 of Annex XVI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by failing to:

                              (i)

                              publish a contract notice throughout the EEA in accordance with the legal requirements laid down in Article 58(3) of the Directive;

                              (ii)

                              use a complete and sufficiently precise set of CPV codes, in breach of Article 58(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Article 1(14) of the Directive and Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV), referred to at point 6a of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement; and

                              (iii)

                              respect the minimum time limit for the submission of applications in an award procedure, as prescribed by Article 59 of the Directive.

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


201808030102050042018/C 294/064512016CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806265622Case C-451/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — National State pension scheme — Conditions for recognition of change of gender — National legislation under which such recognition is subject to the annulment of any marriage entered into before that change of gender — Refusal to grant a person who has changed gender a State retirement pension as from the pensionable age for persons of the gender acquired — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN520120180626EN00065262Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-451/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — National State pension scheme — Conditions for recognition of change of gender — National legislation under which such recognition is subject to the annulment of any marriage entered into before that change of gender — Refusal to grant a person who has changed gender a State retirement pension as from the pensionable age for persons of the gender acquired — Direct discrimination on grounds of sex)’2018/C 294/06Language of the case: English
      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: MB

      Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, in particular the first indent of Article 4(1), read in conjunction with the third indent of Article 3(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a person who has changed gender not only to fulfil physical, social and psychological criteria but also to satisfy the condition of not being married to a person of the gender that he or she has acquired as a result of that change, in order to be able to claim a State retirement pension as from the statutory pensionable age applicable to persons of his or her acquired gender.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case T-443/18: Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/17

      Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)
      (Case T-443/18)
      (2018/C 311/17)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 2 700 847

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 1362/2005-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case C-88/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation — Place of provision of services — Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States — Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/8

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited
      (Case C-88/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation - Place of provision of services - Contract for the carriage of goods between two Member States - Route consisting of several stages and involving a number of means of transport))
      (2018/C 319/09)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy

         Defendant: Abnormal Load Services (International) Limited

         Operative part of the judgment

      The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States in several stages, with stops, and by a number of means of transport, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, both the place of dispatch and the place of delivery of the goods constitute places where transport services are provided, for the purposes of that indent.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-440/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2011/96/EU — Article 1(2) — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse — Presumption)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/24

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern
      (Case C-440/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 1(2) - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse - Presumption))
      (2018/C 328/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: GS

         Defendant: Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

         Operative part of the order

      Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-469/18: Action brought on 26 July 2018 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/26

      Action brought on 26 July 2018 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)
      (Case T-469/18)
      (2018/C 341/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HEATCOAT — Application for registration No 16 865 263

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May2018 in Case R 36/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

                  —

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

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-425/18: Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Altice Europe v Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/20

      Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Altice Europe v Commission
      (Case T-425/18)
      (2018/C 341/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Altice Europe NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and H. Brokelmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2018) 2418 final of 24 April 2018 imposing a fine for putting into effect a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (Case M.7993 — Altice/PT Portugal, Article 14(2) procedure);

                  —

                  in the alternative, exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to substantially reduce the fines imposed in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the European Commission to bear all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR and the principles of legality and presumption of innocence were infringed, insofar as the contested decision applies the notion of ‘implementation’ of a concentration beyond its scope and meaning.
                  The applicant submits that the ‘implementation’ of a concentration for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR would require more than a ‘possibility of exercising decisive influence’ on an undertaking and that none of the elements relied on in the contested decision would amount to an implementation. The applicant further submits that, by unduly extending the notion of ‘implementation’, the contested decision would infringe the principle of legality enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the presumption of innocence guaranteed in Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law, insofar as the contested decision finds that the applicant acquired sole control of PT Portugal.
                  The contested decision would err in law and in fact in establishing that the applicant acquired sole control of PT Portugal and that it implemented the concentration by acquiring sole control of PT Portugal.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact in establishing the existence of the infringements of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR.
                  The pre-closing covenants allegedly contained in the sale-purchase agreement would have had an ancillary nature and would not have amounted to an early implementation of a concentration. Moreover, the applicant would not have actually exercised any decisive influence over PT Portugal prior to the closing. The Commission could not have reasonably relied on the seven matters referred to in Section 4.2.1 of the contested decision to establish the exercise by the applicant of effective control over PT Portugal. Finally, the contested decision would err in law and in fact by finding that the transmission of information to the applicant contributes to the finding of exercise of control.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of ne bis in idem, proportionality, the prohibition of double punishment, and raising an objection of illegality in respect of Articles 4(1) and 14(2)(a) EUMR.
                  By imposing on the same offender two fines for the same conduct based on two statutory provisions that protect the same legal interest, the contested decision allegedly infringes the principle ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the prohibition of double punishment rooted in the general principles common to the legal systems of the Member States. Objection of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU in respect of Articles 4(1) and 14(2)(a) EUMR which would allow the Commission to sanction the same offender twice for a single conduct being already sanctioned by Articles 7(1) and 14(2)(b) EUMR.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fines are illegal and infringe the principle of proportionality.
                  The contested decision would infringe Article 14(2) EUMR, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicant, despite the lack of negligence or intent and of any impairment of the objectives of the EU merger control rules. The contested decision would infringe Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by failing to state reasons as regards the amount of the fines. The contested decision would further infringe the principle of proportionality by imposing a second fine pursuant to Article 14(2)(a) EUMR for the same conduct already sanctioned pursuant to Article 14(2)(b) EUMR. Finally, the fines would infringe the principle of proportionality, since the contested decision would not properly take into account all relevant circumstances when setting their amounts.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1) (‘the EUMR’).


title: Case T-773/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/31

      Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
      (Case T-773/15) (1)

      (2018/C 381/37)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-453/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2018 — Bondora AS v Carlos V. C.
      (Case C-453/18)
      (2018/C 381/04)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia Vigo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bondora AS

         Defendant: Carlos V. C.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) and the case-law interpreting that directive, to be construed as meaning that that article of the directive precludes a national provision, like [point 2 of] the 23rd final provision of Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure), which provides that it is not necessary to submit documents with the application for a European order for payment and that, where documents are submitted, they will be ruled inadmissible?

                  2.

                  Is Article 7(2)(e) of Regulation No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (2) to be construed as meaning that that provision does not preclude a creditor institution from being required to submit documents substantiating its claim based on a consumer loan entered into between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, where the court considers it essential to examine the documents in order to determine whether there are unfair terms in the contract between the parties, thereby complying with the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the case-law interpreting that directive?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).


title: Case T-905/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE — Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)
      (Case T-905/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NUIT PRECIEUSE - Earlier national word mark EAU PRECIEUSE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 381/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland)) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, D. Walicka and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 (Case R 2596/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Chefaro Ireland and Laboratoires M&L.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Chefaro Ireland DAC to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/4

      Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission
      (Case C-460/18 P)
      (2018/C 381/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: HK (represented by: A. Champetier, S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Annul the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 (Case T-574/16);

                  —

                  Dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims made at first instance by the appellant, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative

                  —

                  Refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling and, in those circumstances, make an order as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds. The first ground is based on infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the ambiguous, incoherent and contradictory nature of the statement of reasons. The second ground is based on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the inadequate statement of reasons.


title: Case T-417/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO — Use of external contractors — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/26

      Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO
      (Case T-417/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO - Use of external contractors - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
      (2018/C 381/31)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. M. Garnier, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: N. Bambara and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, first, for the suspension of operation of EUIPO’s decisions relating to measures intended to make it possible to use service providers other than the CdT for the translation services required for its functioning and, secondly, for an order requiring EUIPO to publish in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union a notice suspending its call for tenders concerning the provision of translation services and not to sign contracts relating to that call for tenders.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-72/16: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/31

      Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
      (Case T-72/16) (1)

      (2018/C 381/38)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-468/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Constanța (Romania) lodged on 18 July 2018 — R v P
      (Case C-468/18)
      (2018/C 381/06)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Judecătoria Constanța

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: R

         Defendant: P

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In the context of an action before the courts of a Member State which comprises three heads of claim concerning (i) the divorce of the parents of a minor child, (ii) parental responsibility for that minor child and (iii) maintenance obligations with regard to that minor child, may Article 3(a) and (d) and Article 5 of Regulation No 4/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court seised of the divorce petition, being also a court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident and the court before which the defendant has entered an appearance, has jurisdiction to give a decision on the claim concerning maintenance obligations in respect of the minor child, notwithstanding its finding that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility for the minor child, or may the claim concerning maintenance obligations be decided only by a court having jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim concerning parental responsibility for the minor child?

                  2.

                  In the circumstances relating to the jurisdiction of the national court described above, is the claim concerning maintenance obligations with regard to the minor child ancillary to the claim concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of Regulation No 4/2009?

                  3.

                  In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, is it in the best interests of the child for a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 to decide the claim concerning the maintenance obligations of the parents toward the minor child of the marriage of which the dissolution is sought, notwithstanding the fact that that court has found itself to have no jurisdiction in the matter of parental responsibility and has held, with the force of res judicata, that the conditions laid down by Article 12 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, are not fulfilled? (2)

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1).

         (2)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case T-710/17: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Preliminary examination procedure — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘party concerned’ — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/73

      Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — Lux-Rehab Non-Profit v Commission
      (Case T-710/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘party concerned’ - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/97)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) (Szombathely, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions that the Commission allegedly adopted concerning the complaints SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Lux-Rehab Foglalkoztató Non-Profit Kft. (Lux-Rehab Non-Profit Kft.) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-120/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v EUIPO (fluo.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark fluo. — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v EUIPO (fluo.)
      (Case T-120/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark fluo. - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M.d.M. Baldares and J. Ivanauskas, Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign fluo. as a European Union trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


               6.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/14

      Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Landgericht dated 13 July 2018 in the case of C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein
      (Case E-2/18)
      (2018/C 439/14)
      A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 July 2018 from the Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 July 2018, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein, on the following questions:

                  1.

                  Does Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems merely lay down a minimum framework which must be complied with in order to prevent distortions of competition or are the rules of that regulation mandatory in so far as they also affect and restrict benefit obligations to be performed worldwide under the insurance contract? Is Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems applicable to social insurance systems which merely oblige workers to demonstrate adequate health insurance but allow them, by way of contractual autonomy, to choose between several different insurers governed by private law and only require proof that an appropriate insurance contract has been concluded?

                  2.

                              (a)

                              Is a policyholder required, on account of the validity of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, to submit invoices which are covered by the insurance contract concluded within the framework of the statutory health insurance scheme to the social insurance institution in his place of residence, with the result that the social insurance institution which is situated in the Member State responsible for payment of the pension can be made liable for payment only once the institution in his place of residence has refused to pay or can a policyholder none the less rely on his rights under the insurance contract?

                              (b)

                              If, in accordance with point (a), it is not possible for the policyholder to rely on the insurance contract:
                              Is that also the case where the insurance contract is concluded within the framework of the statutory insurance requirement but the contractual insurance goes beyond the minimum required by law and has thus been concluded to some extent ‘voluntarily’?

                  3.

                  If policyholders are obliged, in accordance with Question 2, to submit invoices first to the institution in their State of residence:

                              (a)

                              Does this also apply to an insured person who has already been provided benefits under the contractual relationship for several years or is reliance by the social insurance scheme on Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems contrary to the principle of good faith?

                              (b)

                              Is a social insurance scheme entitled, relying on Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, to make claims for recovery to an insured person because in the past it has provided insurance cover in excess of the level specified in the regulation, that is to say, it has provided benefits which do not have to be paid under the rules of that regulation, or it is contrary to the principle of good faith to make claims for recovery?

                              (c)

                              Does, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the provision of benefits by the social insurance scheme, without invoices having been submitted through the social insurance institution in the place of residence, also entitle the policyholder to the future provision of benefits, without the need to submit invoices through the social insurance institution in the place of residence?


title: Case T-648/18: Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/56

      Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)
      (Case T-648/18)
      (2019/C 16/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Super bock group, SGPS SA (Leça do Balio, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

         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 word mark Crystal — Application for registration No 15 016 728

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 in Case R 299/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-495/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 — Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods — Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions — Rules on proof of export of goods — Customs declaration — TIR carnet)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/22

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii
      (Case C-495/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 - Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods - Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions - Rules on proof of export of goods - Customs declaration - TIR carnet))
      (2019/C 16/27)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Prahova

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cartrans Spedition Srl

         Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the one hand, and that provision in conjunction with Article 153 of that directive, on the other hand, must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State under which the exemption from value added tax, for, respectively, the supply of transport services directly connected with the export of goods and for the supply of services by intermediaries taking part in those supplies of transport services is subject to the taxable person producing a customs export declaration in respect of the relevant goods. In that regard, it is for the competent authorities, for the purposes of granting those exemptions, to examine whether the meeting of the condition relating to the export of the relevant goods can be inferred, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, from all of the information available to those authorities. In that context, a TIR carnet which is certified by the customs offices of the third country for which the goods are destined, and which is produced by the taxable person, constitutes evidence which, in principle, those authorities must duly take into account, unless they have specific reasons to doubt the authenticity or reliability of that document.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-14/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/58

      Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
      (Case T-14/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, A. Kopp and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

                  3.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-890/16: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory measure — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/34

      Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-890/16) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link - Individual aid - Act not open to challenge - Purely confirmatory measure - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 65/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

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

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 30 September 2016 concerning State aid implemented by Denmark for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-415/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 19 April 2018 in Case T-606/17, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

      Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 19 April 2018 in Case T-606/17, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission

      (Case C-415/18 P)
      (2019/C 82/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      By order of 10 January 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.