title: Case T-228/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Transtec v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Framework contract for the provision of services — Services to third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers — Allegations of grave professional misconduct against a tenderer — No final judgment or final administrative decision establishing grave professional misconduct — Conditions for referral to the panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation — Abnormally low tenders — Duty to state reasons — Taking into account of a letter sent by the awarding authority after the action had been brought — Right to an effective remedy — Standstill period for bringing an action against the award decision — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 105a, 106, 108, 113 and 118 of the Financial Regulation — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Transtec v Commission
      (Case T-228/18) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Framework contract for the provision of services - Services to third countries benefiting from external aid - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to other tenderers - Allegations of grave professional misconduct against a tenderer - No final judgment or final administrative decision establishing grave professional misconduct - Conditions for referral to the panel referred to in Article 108 of the Financial Regulation - Abnormally low tenders - Duty to state reasons - Taking into account of a letter sent by the awarding authority after the action had been brought - Right to an effective remedy - Standstill period for bringing an action against the award decision - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 105a, 106, 108, 113 and 118 of the Financial Regulation - Non-contractual liability)
      (2019/C 230/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application based on Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 March 2018, rejecting the tender for Lot 3 submitted by the consortium of which the applicant was the leader, in call for tenders EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi, entitled ‘Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018) 2017/S’, and the award of the contract to other tenderers and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered due to this rejection.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Transtec to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-301/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-201/17, Printeos v Commission

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/8

      Appeal brought on 11 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 February 2019 in Case T-201/17, Printeos v Commission
      (Case C-301/19 P)
      (2019/C 238/11)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, P. Rossi, and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: Printeos, S.A.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 delivered in Case T-201/17, Printeos S.A. v European Commission

                  —

                  give a ruling on the substance of the case and dismiss in its entirety the action on the grounds that

                              —

                              the claim for compensation based on the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and Article 340 TFEU, and on Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is unfounded,

                              —

                              the plea of illegality in respect of Article 90(4)(a) of Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded,

                              —

                              the claim for annulment of the email of 26 January 2017 is inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded.

                              —

                              order Printeos S.A. to pay the costs of both proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The European Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in the judgment under appeal in respect of the following:

                  —

                  First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the European Commission’s rights of defence and respect for due process by infringing the principle of non ultra petita, when it unduly altered the subject matter and essence of the dispute after inviting the applicant to amend, at the hearing, the classification of the interest which it claimed in its application initiating proceedings.

                  —

                  Second ground of appeal: The General Court misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU by declaring that that article imposes an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay default interest in the event of annulment of a decision imposing a penalty or fine with retroactive effect from the date of provisional payment.

                  —

                  Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by interpreting Article 266 TFEU in the light of the judgments in IPK (2) and Corus (3) and the order in Holcim (4) without taking into account the new regulatory framework applicable to penalties in competition matters.

                  —

                  Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by finding that, in the present case, the conditions laid down by the case-law for non-contractual liability to be incurred had been met.

                  —

                  Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty by not applying, in the present case, Article 90 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 in spite of the finality of a previous decision which did apply that article.

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p.1).

         (2)  Case Commission v IPK International, C-336/13 P, judgment of 12 February 2015, EU:C:2015:83.

         (3)  Case Corus v Commission, T-171/99, judgment of 10 October 2001, EU:T:2001:249.

         (4)  Case Holcim v Commission, T-86/03, order of 4 May 2005, EU:T:2005:157.


title: Case C-330/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Exter BV

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Exter BV
      (Case C-330/19)
      (2019/C 238/12)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Other party: Exter BV

         Question referred

      Does Article 121(1) of the Community Customs Code (1) mean that a preferential tariff measure for the application of which the import goods were eligible at the time of their placement under the inward processing procedure using the suspension system may also be taken into account when determining the amount of the customs debt incurred when the goods were released for free circulation, whether or not in the unaltered state, if that tariff measure was suspended on the date of acceptance of the declaration for release for free circulation?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-347/19: Action brought on 30 April 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/10

      Action brought on 30 April 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-347/19)
      (2019/C 238/13)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by not adopting national provisions on the installation of individual measuring devices for the consumption of heating, cooling and hot water in buildings, in accordance with Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, (1) the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2012/27/EU;

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Plea in law and main argument

      The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has not adopted national provisions on the installation of individual measuring devices for the consumption of heating, cooling and hot water in buildings, in accordance with Article 9(3) of Directive 2012/27/EU.

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 315, p. 1.


title: Case C-362/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2019 in Case T-865/16, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/11

      Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2019 in Case T-865/16, Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission
      (Case C-362/19 P)
      (2019/C 238/14)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, B. Stromsky and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Fútbol Club Barcelona and Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

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

                  —

                  reserve the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and, in particular, in its interpretation of the concept of the advantage of State aid and the Commission’s duty to assess whether there is such an advantage. That single ground of appeal is divided into two parts, which derive from the error of law identified:

                  —

                  First, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding that the examination to determine whether a particular tax regime confers an advantage on its beneficiaries requires not only an analysis of the inherent and well established criteria of the regime being examined, which may place the beneficiaries in a more favourable position in comparison with other undertakings subject to the general regime, but also that that assessment also requires the analysis of unfavourable elements caused by variable circumstances outside the regime in each tax year, even when those unfavourable elements are uncertain and cannot systematically negate the advantage and that, furthermore, they cannot be foreseen in an ex ante review of the regime.

                  —

                  Second, including on the basis of that incorrect assessment of the concept of advantage, the General Court misinterpreted the Commission’s due diligence obligation in the context of the examination of the existence of a State aid system, and erred in law with regard to the burden of proof which the Commission has in showing that there is an advantage in this case.


title: Case C-378/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 14 May 2019 — Prezident Slovenskej republiky

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 14 May 2019 — Prezident Slovenskej republiky
      (Case C-378/19)
      (2019/C 238/15)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Prezident Slovenskej republiky

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can Article 35(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC be interpreted, in particular in the light of recital 33 thereof, as precluding, in a Member State, in the context of the amendment of a national measure transposing that directive, the power to nominate and dismiss the chairman of the Regulatory Authority from being withdrawn from the President of the Republic, who is directly elected by the citizens, and conferred instead on the Government, with the result that the legal situation which existed prior to the transposition of the directive is restored?

                  2.

                  Is it possible to interpret Article 35(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, in particular in the light of recital 34 thereof, as precluding a rule of national law which, in order to ensure defence of the public interest, permits ministers to take part in the tariff regulation procedure at the Regulatory Authority?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Case C-404/19P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2019 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-26/18 France v Commission

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/12

      Appeal brought on 23 May 2019 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-26/18 France v Commission
      (Case C-404/19P)
      (2019/C 238/16)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, C. Mosser, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, in Case T-26/18, France v Commission;

                  —

                  Give final judgment in the matter by annulling Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), in so far as it imposes on France a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The French Government asks the Court to set aside in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismisses its action with regard to the part of the contested decision which concerns the ‘Control system gravely deficient Corse’ for the years 2013 and 2014, in that it applies a flat-rate correction of 100 % on account of deficiencies in the control system for area aid in Haute-Corse.
      In support of its appeal, the French Government relies on a single ground of appeal alleging error of law. It is submitted that the General Court relied on an erroneous interpretation of the conditions provided for in point 3.2.5 of the 2015 guidelines for setting a correction rate higher than 25 %. It is claimed that the General Court confused the evidence to be adduced in the situation where the grant of aid is devoid of any legal basis or misinterprets rules of EU law, and the case where the deficiencies in the control system are sufficiently grave as to allow it to be assumed that the aid has been granted in breach of EU law. The General Court therefore wrongly held that the exclusion of all expenditure from EU funding was justified and that the flat-rate correction of 100 % was well founded.

         (1)  OJ 2017 L 292, p. 61.


title: Case C-425/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2019 in Case T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, Italy and Others v Commission

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/13

      Appeal brought on 29 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2019 in Case T-98/16, T-196/16 and T-198/16, Italy and Others v Commission
      (Case C-425/19 P)
      (2019/C 238/17)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Stancanelli, L. Flynn, A. Bouchagiar, D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Banca Popolare di Bari Società Cooperativa per Azioni, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d’Italia

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2019, joined cases
                  T-98/16, Italian Republic v European Commission
                  T-196/16, Banca Popolare di Bari S.C.p.A. v European Commission
                  T-198/16, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi v European Commission;

                  —

                  dismiss the applications at first instance, in so far as they dispute that the decision at issue shows that the requirements relating to imputability to the State have been met for the measures in question and for their financing through State resources;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the remaining pleas in law at first instance and

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the decision at issue on account of the fact that ‘the Commission has not proved to the requisite legal standard that the Italian public authorities were involved in the adoption of the measure at issue or, consequently, that that measure is imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU’ and ‘did not establish sufficiently, in the contested decision, that the resources at issue were controlled by the Italian public authorities and that, therefore, they were at their disposal’.
      The Commission considers that the judgment under appeal is based on incorrect legal considerations and distortion of the facts, which irremediably invalidate its findings and the operative part of the judgment. The Commission raises two grounds of appeal:

                  —

                  In the first place, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFUE for two reasons:

                              —

                              the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by requiring the Commission to demonstrate positively the existence of a dominant influence on the part of the public authorities, at every stage of the procedure which led to the adoption of the measures in question, over the entity granting the aid, solely on account of the fact that the latter is a private entity;

                              —

                              the General Court erred as regards the burden of proof to be discharged by the Commission in order to establish that the conditions concerning imputability and State resources were met, by examining and assessing the various evidence produced by the Commission in the decision at issue piecemeal, without considering it as a whole and without taking into account its broader context.

                  —

                  In the second place, the findings of the General Court are further vitiated by serious material inaccuracies concerning the facts and the interpretation of the relevant Italian law which are clearly apparent from the case-file.


title: Case T-318/19: Action brought on 23 May 2019 — Thunus and Others v EIB

text:
               22.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/36

      Action brought on 23 May 2019 — Thunus and Others v EIB
      (Case T-318/19)
      (2019/C 246/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and 7 applicants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

                  —

                  consequently,

                              —

                              annul the decision contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of February 2019, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0.8% for the year 2019, and, therefore the annulment of the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips;

                  —

                  accordingly, order the defendant

                              —

                              to pay compensation for material harm (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2019, that is, an increase of 1.2%, for the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0.8% for 2019 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2019; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;

                  —

                  If necessary, should the defendant fail to produce them on its own initiative, order it, by way of measures of organisation of the procedure, to produce the following documents:

                              —

                              the decision of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 18 July 2017 (CA/505/17);

                              —

                              the report of the remuneration subcommittee of the Board of Directors of December 2018;

                              —

                              the decision of the Board of Directors of 11 December 2018 (Annex 3 to PV/19/01);

                              —

                              the decision of the Management Committee of 30 January 2019 (MC-018-ADM-20190130);

                              —

                              the note from the Personnel Directorate of 18 January 2019 (CS-PERS/HRPLC/DIR/2019-001/ABGS);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely respectively, on the one hand, with regard to the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017, on two pleas in law and, on the other hand, with regard to the decisions of the Management Committee of December 2018 and January 2019, on four pleas in law.
      With regard to the decision of the Board of Directors of 18 July 2017:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of acquired rights.

            With regard to the decisions of the Management Committee of December 2018 and January 2019:

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the author of the contested act and infringement of Article 18 of the rules of procedure.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of consultation of the College of staff representatives.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

            As regards the claim for compensation, the applicants claim payment of the difference in remuneration due, that is 1.2% since 1 January 2019 (including the impact of that increase on financial advantages) plus interest for late payment.


title: Case T-273/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary procedure — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Administrative investigation — Mandate given to IDOC — Principle of impartiality — Principle of good administration — Rights of the defence — Disciplinary procedure — Principle of equality of arms — Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand — Proportionality — Non-material damage)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
      (Case T-273/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Administrative investigation - Mandate given to IDOC - Principle of impartiality - Principle of good administration - Rights of the defence - Disciplinary procedure - Principle of equality of arms - Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand - Proportionality - Non-material damage)
      (2019/C 255/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Commission decision of 6 July 2017 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, and, where appropriate, of the decision of 31 January 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Ms Belén Bernaldo de Quirós to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-538/18: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Purely confirmatory measure — Period within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/43

      Order of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
      (Case T-538/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory measure - Period within which an action must be brought - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 255/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 December 2017, and ‘if need be’ the decisions of 28 November 2013 and 4 June 2014 of EUIPO terminating the applicant’s employment contract as of 30 June 2018, and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Ms Sigrid Dickmanns shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by EUIPO.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-702/18: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Durand and Others v Parliament (Actions for failure to act and for annulment — Agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Animal welfare — Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee — Defined position of the Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Informative act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/43

      Order of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Durand and Others v Parliament
      (Case T-702/18) (1)

      (Actions for failure to act and for annulment - Agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Animal welfare - Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee - Defined position of the Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Informative act - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 255/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Pascal Durand (Paris, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action, principally, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament, by decision taken by the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament, unlawfully failed to act on a request of 17 July 2018 seeking the setting up of an inquiry committee and, in the alternative, seeking the annulment, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Parliament of 21 September 2018.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Mr Pascal Durand and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.


title: Case T-171/19: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension — Amounts withheld from remuneration — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/44

      Order of the General Court of 7 June 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS
      (Case T-171/19) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension - Amounts withheld from remuneration - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 255/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the EEAS’s decision communicated to the applicant on 20 September 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against the EEAS’s decision to suspend her from her duties and to withhold amounts from her monthly salary and, secondly, payment of compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                     Ms Chantal Hebberecht shall pay her own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.


title: Case T-319/19: Action brought on 24 May 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/45

      Action brought on 24 May 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament
      (Case T-319/19)
      (2019/C 255/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the European Parliament Bureau Decision of 10 December 2018, together with the decision of 26 March 2019 of the President of the European Parliament rejecting the internal appeal brought before him against that decision;

                  —

                  declare invalid all the acts, modifications, notifications, decisions and deductions resulting from that decision;

                  —

                  award the applicant the sum of EUR 6 500 for the costs incurred in preparing the present action;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Statute for Members. That provision prohibits the Bureau from prejudicing acquired rights or future entitlements of parliamentarians.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 76(3) of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members. According to the applicant, the abovementioned Article 27 of the Statute for Members has the effect of guaranteeing the integrity of the provisions of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members in relation to the pension fund, thereby preventing any change to their structure.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 223(2) TEU and incompetence on the part of the Bureau, in so far as it introduced a tax on the payment of the pensions of former Members which it was not entitled to do, since any decisions on the taxation of parliamentarians fall within the competence of the Council.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The contested act was adopted in breach of the undertakings and texts which constitute reliable assurances and guarantees that no change may be made to the voluntary pension fund scheme.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The Parliament, which is alone responsible for the financial situation created, adopted unfair and insufficient measures on the pretext of addressing it.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The contested decision creates unequal treatment between Members who pay contributions and those who do not, as well as between Members who have already drawn a pension and those who have not.


title: Case T-327/19: Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Mubarak v Council

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/46

      Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Mubarak v Council
      (Case T-327/19)
      (2019/C 255/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith and F. Holmey, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

                  —

                  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 that the defendant had failed to verify that the Egyptian authorities would have respected the applicant’s fundamental European Union rights, including Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the context of the proceedings and investigations relied upon by the defendant.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (3) and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 (4) would have been satisfied.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/468 of 21 March 2019 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 80, 22.3.2019, p. 40).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 80, 22.3.2019, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63).

         (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4).


title: Case T-334/19: Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/46

      Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission
      (Case T-334/19)
      (2019/C 255/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: C. Jeffs, lawyer, J. Staples, Solicitor, D. Beard QC and J. Williams, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  to annul (in whole or in part) the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 in Case COMP/AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense);

                  —

                  consequently, or in the alternative, to annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense)). The applicants seek annulment of each of the three findings of infringement, the finding that they amounted to a single continuous infringement and the imposition of a fine.
      In support of the action, they rely on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in its assessments of market definition and thus dominance. In particular, the contested decision errs in finding that:

                              —

                              search ads and non-search ads do not compete;

                              —

                              directly sold ads and intermediated ads do not compete.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s so-called exclusivity clause (‘Site-Exclusivity Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:

                              —

                              mischaracterizes the Site-Exclusivity Clause as an exclusive supply obligation;

                              —

                              errs in finding that the decision was not required to analyze if the Site-Exclusivity Clause was likely to have anti-competitive effects;

                              —

                              fails to demonstrate that the Site-Exclusivity clause, however characterized, was likely to restrict competition.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s premium placement and minimum Google ads clause (‘Placement Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:

                              —

                              mischaracterizes the Placement Clause;

                              —

                              fails to demonstrate that the Placement Clause was likely to restrict competition.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s authorising equivalent ads clause (‘Modification Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision:

                              —

                              does not demonstrate that the Modification Clause was likely to restrict competition;

                              —

                              alternatively wrongly ignores that the Modification Clause was objectively justified because it protected website users, publishers, advertisers and Google and/or that any foreclosure effect was outweighed by the advantages of the clause.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in imposing a fine and in calculating that fine. The contested decision:

                              —

                              fails to consider Google’s lack of intent or negligence and that the Commission selected the case for commitments;

                              —

                              alternatively errs in calculating the fine;

                              —

                              further or alternatively does not respect the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-336/19: Action brought on 31 May 2019 — BZ v Commission

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/48

      Action brought on 31 May 2019 — BZ v Commission
      (Case T-336/19)
      (2019/C 255/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: BZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss the applicant in response to a report on the probationary period before the end of that period;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the applicant the following separate sums by way of damages:

                              —

                              EUR 5 000 in respect of non-material harm caused by the dismissal decision;

                              —

                              EUR 5 000 in respect of damage to reputation caused by the dismissal decision;

                              —

                              EUR 10 000 in respect of material harm caused by the adverse effects on the applicant’s state of health following her dismissal;

                              —

                              EUR 58 900 in respect of material harm linked to the loss of income as a result of her unlawful dismissal;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         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 infringement of the procedural guarantees in respect of administrative and disciplinary investigations, and infringement of the rights of the defence and of the presumption of innocence.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84(1) and (3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of the rights connected with the probationary period and a consequent manifest error of assessment by the administration.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of the principle of proportionality:

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, concerning a claim for special damages in response to the abovementioned irregularities.


title: Case T-341/19: Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/49

      Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)
      (Case T-341/19)
      (2019/C 255/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TASER in colours black, yellow and red — European Union trade mark No 12 817 052

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 in Case R 1577/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision expressly declaring the validity of the European Union trademark No. 12 817 052‘TASER’ (fig.) for all registered goods in class 8;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervening party, Taser International, Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-342/19: Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/50

      Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)
      (Case T-342/19)
      (2019/C 255/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TASER in colours black, yellow and red — European Union trade mark No 11 710 134

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 in Case R 1576/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision expressly declaring the validity of the European Union trademark No. 11 710 134‘TASER’ (fig.) for all registered goods in class 18 and 25;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervening party, Taser International, Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-349/19: Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/51

      Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear)
      (Case T-349/19)
      (2019/C 255/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Decathlon (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Athlon Custom Sportswear P.C. (Kallithea, Greece)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark athlon custom sportswear — Application for registration No 16 162 596

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2019 in Case R 1724/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  grant its request;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  confirm the opposition decision of 6 July 2018 in case No B 002879164;

                  —

                  refuse the registration of the mark athlon custom sportswear No 016162596;

                  —

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

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-350/19: Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Bontempi and Others v EUIPO — Sand Cph (WhiteSand)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/52

      Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Bontempi and Others v EUIPO — Sand Cph (WhiteSand)
      (Case T-350/19)
      (2019/C 255/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Emanuela Bontempi (Montemarciano, Italy) and 6 others (represented by: S. Rizzo and O. Musco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WhiteSand — Application for registration No 16 416 596

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 in Case R 1913/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-352/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/53

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)
      (Case T-352/19)
      (2019/C 255/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piejūra SIA (Nīcas novads, Latvia)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

         Design at issue: European Union design No 2022 772-0001 (Packing for foodstuffs)

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 in Case R 2516/2017-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and declare the design valid;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case T-353/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/54

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)
      (Case T-353/19)
      (2019/C 255/67)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piejūra SIA (Nīcas novads, Latvia)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

         Design at issue: European Union design No 1819 558-0002 (Packing for foodstuffs)

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2019 in Case R 2543/2017-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and declare the design valid;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case T-354/19: Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/55

      Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778)
      (Case T-354/19)
      (2019/C 255/68)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Palacio Domecq, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Otero Iglesias, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Domecq Bodega Las Copas, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark PALACIO DOMECQ 1778 — Application for registration No 11 499 506

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2019 in Case R 867/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action well-founded and alter the contested decision by granting in its entirety the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO, dismissing in its entirety the cross-appeal brought by the opponent and, consequently, dismissing the intervener’s opposition in its entirety;

                  —

                  in the alternative, and if appropriate, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in order for it to adopt a new decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal;

                  —

                  order the intervener to pay the costs incurred by Palacio Domecq, SL in the opposition proceedings and in the appeal before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and of Article 25(5) of the Delegated Regulation.


title: Case T-351/19: Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/56

      Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
      (Case T-351/19)
      (2019/C 263/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — Application for registration No 12 172 276

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2019 in Case R 2297/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-762/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for optical disk drives — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers — Infringement by object — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission
      (Case T-762/15) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
      (2019/C 305/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) and Sony Electronics (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case C-440/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — GS v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-440/17)
   (2017/C 374/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GS

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Questions referred

               I)

               Does Article 49 in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU preclude national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
               in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and

                           1.

                           there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or

                           2.

                           the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose,

                     whereas resident parent companies are granted relief from tax on income from capital without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

               II)

               Should Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (1) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a rule which denies relief from tax on income from capital on distributions of profits to a non-resident parent company whose sole shareholder is a company with its seat within the country,
               in so far as persons have shareholdings in it who would not be entitled to a refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and the gross income earned by the foreign company in the relevant trading year does not result from its own economic activity, and

                           1.

                           there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of the foreign company in relation to that income, or

                           2.

                           the foreign company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose?

      (1)  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 (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8), previously Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


title: Case T-584/17: Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/42

         Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)
   (Case T-584/17)
   (2017/C 374/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue, containing the word elements ‘Primart Marek Łukasiewicz’ — Application for registration No 13 682 299

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 in Case R 1933/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-350/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Common fisheries policy — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for compensation — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law — Whether possible to rely on that breach — Principle of non-discrimination — Res judicata)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/24

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-350/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common fisheries policy - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Claim for compensation - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law - Whether possible to rely on that breach - Principle of non-discrimination - Res judicata))
   (2017/C 382/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C., Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe & C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo & C. and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-650/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/49

         Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Jinan Meide Casting v Commission
   (Case T-650/17)
   (2017/C 374/74)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2017/1146 of 28 June 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactures by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd.; and;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      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 a violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation (1) by the reliance on (i) low volume sales outside the ordinary course of trade and (ii) unreliable cost data to arbitrarily exclude sales
               The applicant submits that the normal value determination made by the Commission violates Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation for two reasons.

                           —

                           First, so the applicant states, the normal value determination is distorted by the inclusion of sales of product control numbers (‘PCN’s) that were only sold in very small volumes by the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it demonstrated that the prices of such low volume sales were not reliable and resulted in an unreasonable determination of the normal value. Moreover, so the applicant claims, the low volume sales do not reflect normal behavior on the part of purchasers and result from normal patterns of price formation, and are accordingly not in the ordinary course of trade, thus not permitting a proper comparison. According to the applicant, the Commission stressed that it carried out an ordinary course of trade test, but failed to address the foregoing.

                           —

                           Second, according to the applicant, the Commission did not obtain reliable cost data by PCN from the analogue country producer. The applicant claims that it therefore developed a methodology to calculate such PCN-specific cost data, but that in reality, this methodology was a mere presumption that all transactions that were priced below 92,14 % of the average price of the PCN were not profitable, rather than a PCN-by-PCN profitability check. The applicant puts forward that such a general assumption is entirely unreasonable, and leads to an arbitrary exclusion of sales transactions and an unjustified increase of the normal value. The applicant comes to the conclusion that the reliance on such methodology and unreliable data to arbitrarily exclude lower priced sales from the normal value determination to its detriment violates Article 2(7)(a).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation and Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of good administration by rejecting the adjustments for level of trade, credit terms, packing cost and differences in raw materials and productivity and by imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, all of its sales were made to end-users whereas the analogue country producer sold both to end-users and to traders. The applicant puts forward that it submitted abundant evidence showing that there was a consistent difference in pricing and that despite this, the Commission rejected the requested adjustment for the differences in level of trade.

                           —

                           The applicant argues that the Commission further rejected to revise the calculation of the adjustment for packing costs, even though the applicant submitted evidence that the value of the adjustment was erroneous as a result of the use of a wrong allocation key. According to the applicant, the Commission thus violated its obligations by allocating the total packing cost over the total turnover rather than over the turnover of the products produced by the analogue country producer itself.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the Commission also rejected to make an adjustment for credit costs to the bulk of sales by the analogue country producer. According to the applicant, the applicant demonstrated that the evidence on record contradicted the Commission’s position that had initially led it to not make such adjustment, and rather than drawing the right conclusions about the need to make adjustments for credit terms, the Commission made an adjustment for a single specific customer in violation of its obligations.

                           —

                           Finally, so the applicant states, the Commission recognized that there were differences between the raw materials used and the productivity of the analogue country producer and the applicant, but rejected to make any adjustments for these differences. In this respect, so the applicant states, the Commission inter alia ignored the statements by the analogue country producer itself which demonstrated that these differences existed and had an impact on price comparability.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the Commission further imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on Jinan in violation of its obligations under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of sound administration, in relation to each of the requested adjustments addressed above.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 2(7)(a), 2(10), 2(10)(a) and 2(11) of the Basic regulation by means if the dumping margin determination with respect to non-matching product types.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that by determining the normal value for non-matching product types on the basis of the average normal value adjusted by the value of the product differences which was determined on the basis of the difference between the export prices charged by the applicant, the Commission adopted an unreasonable methodology to determine the normal value, in violation of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation. According to the applicant, this is based on the assumption that the market value of the differences in physical characteristics is reflected in the export prices, whereas in reality the export prices of the matching product types used as proxy reflect, based on the findings of the Commission, at least partially the dumping. According to the applicant, the methodology incorporates an assumption that the exports of the non-matching product types in question are priced at a level that is dumped at the exact same margin as that found to exist for the matching product types. The applicant considers this assumption unreasonable and unverifiable.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that by adopting a methodology that results in an assumption of dumping for the non-matching product types at the same level as that for the matching product types, the dumping margin eventually obtained does not reflect the full degree of dumping being practiced contrary to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data or violation of Article 3, Article 9(4) and 9(5) of the Basic regulation by imposing duties on the applicant without any finding of injury or causation.

                           —

                           Unless the Court were to consider that the Contested Regulation incorporates the injury and causation findings included in the Annulled Regulation (2) by reference, the applicant submits that in view of the annulment of the Annulled Regulation as a whole with respect to the applicant, the Contested Regulation imposes anti-dumping duties on the imports by the applicant without having regard to the requirements laid down with respect to elements other than dumping. According to the applicant this leads, inter alia, to a violation of Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty is being imposed without a finding of injury and causation, and Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, as a definitive anti-dumping duty has been imposed on a source that was not found to be causing injury. The applicant puts forward that in the absence of any injury findings in a Regulation that exists with respect to the applicant, the Commission also violated Article 3 of the Basic Regulation which deals with the determination of injury. The applicant further submits that the statement of reasons is also lacking.

                           —

                           Alternatively, so the applicant claims, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation by relying on inaccurate import data. Indeed, according to the applicant, for the finding of injury, reliance was made on import data which, on the basis of the information available to the Commission, clearly included imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant puts forward that the Commission, however, failed to take the necessary steps to verify the accurateness of the import data and to correct them by excluding imports of products that cannot be considered to be the product concerned. The applicant comes to the conclusion that as a result, the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Basic Regulation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 266 TFUE and Article 9(4) of the 2009 Basic Regulation as the Council should have implemented the judgment, not the Commission
               According to the applicant, the procedure provided for by the 2009 Basic Regulation, which by the Commission’s own admission was the law applicable to the reinvestigation, requires an imposition by the Council acting on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation of the Advisory Committee. The applicant states that this procedure was not followed and that therefore, the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of Article 9(4) of the 2009 basic Regulation and Article 266 TFEU which requires the institution whose act has been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply.

      (1)  References to the Basic Regulation are deemed to refer in primary order to the 2009 Basic Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members to the European Community, OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) and in subsidiary order to the corresponding provision of the 2016 Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ 2013, L 129, p. 1).


title: Case T-510/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/35

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-510/17)
   (2017/C 374/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 41 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, first, the decision of the Single Resolution Board adopted in its Executive Session of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 (1), and, further, declare illegal Articles 18 and 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2);

               —

               order the defendants to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, in that the process stipulated therein fails to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard and allows for no judicial oversight, in violation of (a) Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EU Charter) and (b) the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, irrespective of whether Article 18 of the SRM Regulation is unlawful, the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision infringed Articles 41, 47 and 48 of the EU Charter.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ right to property.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 20 of the SRM Regulation by failing to undertake a proper and independent valuation prior to taking the contested SRM Decision and the contested Commission Decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 18(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions precedent set out under Articles 18(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission infringed Article 21(1) of the SRM Regulation in determining that the conditions for the exercise of the power to write down or convert relevant capital instruments were satisfied.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB and Commission breached an essential procedural requirement in failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the contested SRB Decision and the contested Commission Decision.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that in selecting the sale of business tool, the SRB and Commission have failed to comply with (a) the principle of proportionality; and (b) the legitimate expectations of the applicants, by departing from the resolution plan without justification.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 and 22 of the SRM Regulation breached the principles relating to the delegation of powers.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A. (notified under document C(2017) 4038) (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15).

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


title: Case C-475/16: Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K.

text:
               6.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 374/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K.
   (Case C-475/16) (1)

   (2017/C 374/35)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 22.11.2016.


title: Case C-570/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence)

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën
   (Case C-570/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b)(i) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Person employed in one Member State and who pursues part of his activities in the Member State of his residence))
   (2017/C 382/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who is employed by an employer established in the territory of one Member State and who resides in another Member State where he carried out, over the course of the past year, a part of his employment activity amounting to 6,5 % of his hours worked without such an arrangement having been agreed with his employer in advance, is not to be considered to be normally employed in the territory of two Member States, within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-641/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/57

         Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Ferri v ECB
   (Case T-641/17)
   (2017/C 382/70)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Claudio Ferri (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Campagnola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should declare that there has been a failure to carry out the supervisory duties initiated by the note of 24 March 2017 for which, following an exchange of correspondence, the competent department of the ECB stated that it was not required to make provision, claiming that the issue relates to both self-protection and supervisory duties with regard to the adoption of standards for monitoring the conduct of Italian banks.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the European Central Bank has not performed the supervisory duties incumbent on it with reference to the following:

               —

               Failure promptly to enact the provisions implementing Legislative Decree No 72 of 2015 and subsequently to apply Legislative Decree No 385 of 1993, which has been deemed to continue to apply, in respect of another activity following on from the aforementioned failure by Banca d’Italia to enact those implementing provisions.

               —

               Failure to order Banca d’Italia to initiate, within the State system, an adaptation of the legislation governing litigation in relation to the application of penalties.

               —

               Failure to monitor the suitability of the criteria for assessing the efficiency of the banking system, which are currently clearly framed in relation to very complex and highly-structured banking institutions, and give no indication that they are flexible or in fact suitable.

               —

               Unreliability of the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Frascati’s activities, given that those criteria have clearly been designed and structured to provide an assessment of the appropriateness of a complex and highly-structured banking mechanism.


title: Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5))

text:
               13.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 382/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie
   (Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ - Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks - Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ - Article 66(2) - Essential function - Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Definition - Similarity of goods and services - Criteria for assessment - Article 8(5)))
   (2017/C 382/14)
   Language of the cases: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M. Maier and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Delta Lingerie (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders The Tea Board to pay the costs of the main appeals;

               3.

               Orders Delta Lingerie to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.