201808030662050952018/C 294/744052018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180703596022Case T-405/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Holmer Dahl v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5920120180703EN0074592602Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Holmer Dahl v SRB
   (Case T-405/18)2018/C 294/74Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Helene Holmer Dahl (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. shares she owned;

            —

            Order the Board to pay the following amounts to the applicant as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered (‘the amount due’):

                     —

                     As compensation for pecuniary damage, the total sum of EUR 160558,41 in respect of the redemption of shares in Banco Popular; and

                     —

                     As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, a sum of up to EUR 160558,41 or such amount as the General Court shall see fit to award.

            —

            Increase the amount due with corresponding compensatory interest, as of 7 July 2017 until the date of delivery of judgment disposing of the present case;

            —

            Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until its payment in full of the amount due, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

            —

            Order the Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied upon in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017 C 424, p. 42).


201808030742050982018/C 294/566162015TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180703424322Case T-616/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Transtec v Commission (EDF — ACP countries — The Cotonou Agreement — Support programme for cultural initiatives in Portuguese-speaking African countries — Sums paid by the Commission to the body entrusted with the financial implementation of the programme in Guinea-Bissau — Recovery following a financial audit — Offsetting of debts — Proportionality — Unjust enrichment — Non-contractual liability)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN4220120180703EN0056422432Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2018 — Transtec v Commission
   (Case T-616/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EDF — ACP countries — The Cotonou Agreement — Support programme for cultural initiatives in Portuguese-speaking African countries — Sums paid by the Commission to the body entrusted with the financial implementation of the programme in Guinea-Bissau — Recovery following a financial audit — Offsetting of debts — Proportionality — Unjust enrichment — Non-contractual liability)’2018/C 294/56Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Aresu and S. Bartelt, and subsequently A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the set-off decisions contained in the Commission’s letters of 27 August and 7, 16, 23 and 25 September 2015, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 624388,73, corresponding to the amount of part of the advance paid to the applicant in the context of a support programme for cultural initiatives in Guinea-Bissau, financed by the ninth European Development Fund (EDF), plus late-payment interest, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking recovery of sums allegedly linked to unjust enrichment, as well as compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s conduct.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls, in part, the set-off decisions contained in the Commission’s letters of 27 August and 7, 16, 23 and 25 September 2015, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 624388,73, corresponding to the amount of part of the advance paid to the applicant in the context of a support programme for cultural initiatives in Guinea-Bissau, financed by the ninth European Development Fund (EDF), plus late-payment interest, to the extent that they seek to recover the amount of EUR 312265,42, corresponding to the amount of ineligible expenses identified by financial finding No 2 of EDF’s audit report 2007/20859 concerning the operational programme estimate and the closure programme estimate reference FED/2010/249-005;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders the Commission and Transtec to each bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-404/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2018 — Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA

text:
               3.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2018 — Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA
      (Case C-404/18)
      (2018/C 311/07)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen

         Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA

         Question referred

      Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


title: Case T-451/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Fujikura v Commission
      (Case T-451/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

         Re:

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

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Fujikura Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-70/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — TenneT Holding v EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NorthSeaGrid — Earlier EU word and figurative marks nationalgrid — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — TenneT Holding v EUIPO — Ngrid Intellectual Property (NorthSeaGrid)
      (Case T-70/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NorthSeaGrid - Earlier EU word and figurative marks nationalgrid - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: TenneT Holding BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Limperg, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Traub, Solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property and TenneT Holding.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 1607/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Ngrid Intellectual Property Ltd and TenneT Holding BV;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by TenneT Holding BV;

                  3.

                  Orders Ngrid Intellectual Property to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case C-606/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Nexans France, Nexans against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-449/14: Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/29

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Nexans France, Nexans against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-449/14: Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
      (Case C-606/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Nexans France, Nexans (represented by: G. Forwood, avocate, M. Powell, A. Rogers, Solicitors)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018 in Nexans France & Nexans v Commission (Case T-449/14, EU:T:2018:456);

                  —

                  refer the matter back to the General Court to decide on its action for the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it concerns the appellants;

                  —

                  reduce the fines imposed on the appellants by an amount that corresponds to a reduced gravity factor; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  First, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) as regards the copying of unexamined electronic data, in that the copying of unexamined electronic data fell outside the Commission’s powers;

                  2.

                  Second, an error of law in interpreting Article 20(2) of Regulation 1/2003 as regards the continued inspection at the Commission’s premises in Brussels, in that the Commission’s powers under that provision are limited to the premises of the undertakings in question;

                  3.

                  Third, an error of law in finding that the Commission did not exceed the terms of the inspection decision, in that the inspection decision should properly be understood as specifying that the inspection could only take place in all premises controlled by the appellants;

                  4.

                  Fourth, an error of law as regards the lack of effects of the infringement, in that the General Court failed to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, and itself reduce the gravity factor to take account of the fact that the majority of sales covered by the contested decision were in fact unaffected by the infringement; and

                  5.

                  Fifth, a manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning as regards the additional extra 2 % for the ‘European configuration’, in that no reasons were put forward why the European configuration caused additional distortion of competition in the EEA to the Europe-Asia configuration.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-595/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/59

      Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
      (Case T-595/18)
      (2018/C 436/83)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark berlinGas — Application for registration No 15 252 661

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2018 in Case R 2180/2016-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-293/17), Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant (C-294/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Special areas of conservation — Article 6 — Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site — National programmatic approach to tackling nitrogen deposition — Concepts of ‘project’ and ‘appropriate assessment’ — Overall assessment prior to individual authorisations for farms which cause nitrogen deposition)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/13

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (C-293/17), Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant (C-294/17)
      (Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 6 - Appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site - National programmatic approach to tackling nitrogen deposition - Concepts of ‘project’ and ‘appropriate assessment’ - Overall assessment prior to individual authorisations for farms which cause nitrogen deposition))
      (2019/C 16/15)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu

         Defendants: College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

         Interveners: G. H. Wildenbeest, Maatschap Smeets, Maatschap Lintzen-Crooijmans, W. A. H. Corstjens (C-293/17)
      and

         Applicant: Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel

         Defendant: College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

         Interveners: Maatschap Gebr. Lammers, Landbouwbedrijf Swinkels, Pluimveehouderij Van Diepen VOF, Vermeerderingsbedrijf Engelen, Varkenshouderij Limburglaan BV, Madou Agro Varkens CV (C-294/17)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites may be classified as a ‘project’ within the meaning of that provision, even if those activities, in so far as they are not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings, do not constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

                  2.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a recurring activity, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, authorised under national law before the entry into force of that directive, may be regarded as one and the same project for the purposes of that provision, exempted from a new authorisation procedure, in so far as it constitutes a single operation characterised by a common purpose, continuity and, inter alia, the location and the conditions in which it is carried out being the same. If a single project was authorised before the system of protection laid down by that provision became applicable to the site in question, the carrying out of that project may nevertheless fall within the scope of Article 6(2) of that directive.

                  3.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation which allows the competent authorities to authorise projects on the basis of an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance and in which a specific overall amount of nitrogen deposition has been deemed compatible with that legislation’s objectives of protection. That is so, however, only in so far as a thorough and in-depth examination of the scientific soundness of that assessment makes it possible to ensure that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects of each plan or project on the integrity of the site concerned, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

                  4.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exempting certain projects which do not exceed a certain threshold value or a certain limit value in terms of nitrogen deposition from the requirement for individual approval, if the national court is satisfied that the ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance, meets the criterion that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the lack of adverse effects of those plans or projects on the integrity of the sites concerned.

                  5.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a certain category of projects, in the present case the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface and the grazing of cattle, to be implemented without being subject to a permit requirement and, accordingly, to an individualised appropriate assessment of its implications for the sites concerned, unless the objective circumstances make it possible to rule out with certainty any possibility that those projects, individually or in combination with other projects, may significantly affect those sites, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  6.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision may not take into account the existence of ‘conservation measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, ‘preventive measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, measures specifically adopted for a programme such as that at issue in the main proceedings or ‘autonomous’ measures, in so far as those measures are not part of that programme, if the expected benefits of those measures are not certain at the time of that assessment.

                  7.

                  Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that measures introduced by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, including procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of farms whose activities cause nitrogen deposition and the possibility of imposing penalties, up to and including the closure of those farms, are sufficient for the purposes of complying with that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-544/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/24

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 — BPC Lux 2 Sàrl v European Commission, Portuguese Republic
      (Case C-544/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision of the European Commission declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action before the national courts seeking annulment of the decision to put Banco Espírito Santo into resolution))
      (2019/C 16/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, B. Woolgar, Barrister, and K. Bacon QC)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (T-812/14, not published, EU:T:2017:560);

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-296/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) — International jurisdiction — Action to set a transaction aside — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/14

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation v Zhan Oved Tadzher
      (Case C-296/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - International jurisdiction - Action to set a transaction aside - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened))
      (2019/C 16/16)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant in cassation: Wiemer & Trachte GmbH, in liquidation

         Respondent in cassation: Zhan Oved Tadzher

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency which has been brought against a defendant whose registered office or habitual residence is in another Member State is exclusive.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case C-619/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Sebastian W. Kreuziger v Land Berlin
      (Case C-619/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the payment in lieu thereof, where the worker did not submit a request for leave before the termination of the employment relationship))
      (2019/C 16/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Sebastian W. Kreuziger

         Respondent: Land Berlin

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it entails that, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave prior to the termination of the employment relationship, that worker loses — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him, in particular through the provision of sufficient information, to exercise his right to leave prior to the termination of that relationship — the days of paid annual leave to which he was entitled under EU law on the date of the termination of that relationship, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-308/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Scope — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ — Bonds issued by a Member State — Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State — Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms — Collective action clauses — Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons — Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/15

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hellenische Republik v Leo Kuhn
      (Case C-308/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Scope - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Bonds issued by a Member State - Involvement of the private sector in the restructuring of public debt of that State - Unilateral and retroactive adjustment of the borrowing terms - Collective action clauses - Action brought against the State by private creditors who hold those bonds as natural persons - Liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority))
      (2019/C 16/17)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Hellenische Republik

         Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Leo Kuhn

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to an action brought by a natural person having acquired bonds issued by a Member State, against that State and seeking to contest the exchange of those bonds with bonds of a lower value, imposed on that natural person by the effect of a law adopted in exceptional circumstances by the national legislator, according to which those terms were unilaterally and retroactively amended by the introduction of a CAC allowing a majority of holders of the relevant bonds to impose that exchange on the minority, does not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that article.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case T-625/18: Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/46

      Action brought on 10 October 2018 — FT v ESMA
      (Case T-625/18)
      (2019/C 16/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: FT (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul decision ESMA41-137-1154 of the Executive Director of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 9 August 2018 with which ESMA requests the recovery of the amount of EUR 12 000, in relation to the costs incurred by ESMA in Case F-39/14;

                  —

                  annul the related debit note No 4440180170 of 10 August 2018 issued by ESMA;

                  —

                  order ESMA to bear its own costs and those of the applicant in the current proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation, (1) Article 60 of the ESMA Financial Regulation, (2) Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as well as the principle of equality of arms of the parties of a dispute, as the amount allegedly owed by the applicant and stipulated in the contested acts had not been determined in accordance with the said Article 170 by the General Court.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the costs claimed by the defendant are non-recoverable, as it exceeded the reasonable time for making such requests.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation by the defendant of the debt owed by the applicant, as the amount claimed of EUR 12 000 is exorbitant.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

         (2)  Decision of the Management Board on the Financial Regulation of the European Securities and Markets
      Authority ESMA/2014/MB/38.


title: Case C-310/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Scope — Article 2 — Reproduction rights — Concept of ‘work’ — Taste of a food product)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — Netherlands) — Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV
      (Case C-310/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Scope - Article 2 - Reproduction rights - Concept of ‘work’ - Taste of a food product))
      (2019/C 16/18)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Levola Hengelo BV

         Respondent: Smilde Foods BV

         Operative part of the judgment

      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-426/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Beneficiary of legal aid — Remuneration of legal aid lawyers — Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council — No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client — Complaint as to fees — Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair — Main dispute — Referral to a competent body — No referral to the referring court — Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Utility — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/26

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
      (Case C-426/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Beneficiary of legal aid - Remuneration of legal aid lawyers - Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council - No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client - Complaint as to fees - Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair - Main dispute - Referral to a competent body - No referral to the referring court - Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Utility - None - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 16/32)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

         Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Social Court No 2, Terrassa, Spain), by decision of 27 June 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-330/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Article 2(18) — Article 23(1) — Transport — Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union — Information — Indication of the final price to be paid — Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid — Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency — Choice of the relevant local currency — Connecting factors)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH
      (Case C-330/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 2(18) - Article 23(1) - Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Information - Indication of the final price to be paid - Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid - Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency - Choice of the relevant local currency - Connecting factors))
      (2019/C 16/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV

         Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 23(1) in conjunction with Article 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who do not express those fares in euros are required to choose a local currency that is objectively linked to the service offered. That is the case in particular of the currency which is legal tender in the Member State in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight is located.
      Thus, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which an air carrier established in a Member State in which the euro is legal tender offers on the internet an air service for which the place of departure of the flight is located in another Member State in which a currency other than the euro is legal tender, the air fares may, if they are not expressed in euros, be indicated in the currency which is legal tender in that other Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case T-635/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Industrial Química del Nalón v Commission

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/47

      Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Industrial Química del Nalón v Commission
      (Case T-635/18)
      (2019/C 16/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 833 628,00 EUR or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

                  —

                  in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce within the same period, their submission with detailed figures in support;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the judgment until actual payment; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).


title: Case C-334/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Decision 2006/776/EC — Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission — Letter of refusal — Appeal against that letter — Admissibility)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/17

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia
      (Case C-334/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Common organisation of the markets - Amount to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Decision 2006/776/EC - Request for modification of a final decision of the European Commission - Letter of refusal - Appeal against that letter - Admissibility))
      (2019/C 16/20)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Parties

         Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents, and by S. Mody, vandeadvokaat), Republic of Latvia

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  orders the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case C-684/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Tetsuji Shimizu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the allowance in lieu thereof where an application for leave has not been made by the worker prior to the termination of the employment relationship — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. v Tetsuji Shimizu
      (Case C-684/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave - National legislation providing for the loss of annual leave not taken and of the allowance in lieu thereof where an application for leave has not been made by the worker prior to the termination of the employment relationship - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Whether it may be relied upon in a dispute between individuals))
      (2019/C 16/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.

         Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event that the worker did not ask to exercise his right to paid annual leave during the reference period concerned, that worker loses, at the end of that period — automatically and without prior verification of whether the employer had in fact enabled him to exercise that right, in particular through the provision of sufficient information — the days of paid annual leave acquired under those provisions in respect of that period, and, accordingly, his right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in the event that the employment relationship is terminated. It is, in that regard, for the referring court to determine, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, whether it can arrive at an interpretation of that right capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of EU law.

                  2.

                  In the event that it is impossible to interpret national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it follows from the latter provision that a national court hearing a dispute between a worker and his former employer who is a private individual must disapply the national legislation and ensure that, should the employer not be able to show that it has exercised all due diligence in enabling the worker actually to take the paid annual leave to which he is entitled under EU law, the worker cannot be deprived of his acquired rights to that paid annual leave or, correspondingly, and in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, to the allowance in lieu of leave not taken which must be paid, in that case, directly by the employer concerned.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case C-300/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by UF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-422/17 UF v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/26

      Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by UF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-422/17 UF v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      (Case C-300/18 P)
      (2019/C 16/33)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Parties

         Appellant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, advokatė)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
      By order of 11 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) decided that the appeal was manifestly unfounded.


title: Case T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Psara and Others v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Parliament — Expenditure by Members of the Parliament of their allowances — Refusal to grant access — Non-existent documents — Personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Need to transfer the data — Specific and individual examination — Partial access — Excessive administrative burden — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Psara and Others v Parliament
      (Case T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - European Parliament - Expenditure by Members of the Parliament of their allowances - Refusal to grant access - Non-existent documents - Personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Need to transfer the data - Specific and individual examination - Partial access - Excessive administrative burden - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 16/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-639/15: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-640/15: Tina Kristan (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-641/15: Tanja Malle (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-642/15: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-643/15: Staffan Dahllof (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-644/15: Delphine Reuter (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Cases T-645/15 and T-654/15: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-646/15: Harry Karanikas (Chalándri, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Cases T-647/15 and T-657/15: Crina Boros (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Cases T-648/15, T-663/15 and T-665/15: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-649/15: Balazs Toth (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-650/15: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-651/15: Atanas Tchobanov (Plessis-Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-652/15: Dirk Liedtke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-653/15: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-655/15: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-656/15: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-658/15: Marcos García Rey (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-659/15: Mark Lee Hunter (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-660/15: Kristof Clerix (Brussels) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-661/15: Rui Araujo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-662/15: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-664/15: Jacob Borg (St Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-666/15: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Applicant in Case T-94/16: Gavin Sheridan (represented by: N. Pirc Musar and R. Lemut Strle, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Applications on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decisions A(2015) 8324 C, A(2015) 8463 C, A(2015) 8627 C, A(2015) 8682 C, A(2015) 8594 C, A(2015) 8551 C, A(2015) 8732 C, A(2015) 8681 C, A(2015) 8334 C, A(2015) 8327 C and A(2015) 8344 C of 14 September 2015, A(2015) 8656 C, A(2015) 8678 C, A(2015) 8361 C, A(2015) 8663 C, A(2015) 8360 C, A(2015) 8486 C and A(2015) 8305 C of 15 September 2015, A(2015) 8602 C, A(2015) 8554 C, A(2015) 8490 C, A(2015) 8659 C, A(2015) 8547 C, A(2015) 8552 C, A(2015) 8553 C, A(2015) 8661 C, A(2015) 8684 C and A(2015) 8672 C of 16 September 2015, and A(2015) 13844 C of 14 January 2016 of the European Parliament, by which the Parliament rejected, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), the applicants’ confirmatory applications for access to Parliament documents containing information on the allowances of its members.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders the joinder of Cases T-639/15 to T-666/15 and T-94/16 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                  Orders Ms Maria Psara, Ms Tina Kristan, Ms Tanja Malle, Mr Wojciech Cieśla, Mr Staffan Dahllof, Ms Delphine Reuter, České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s., Mr Harry Karanikas, Ms Crina Boros, Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica, Mr Balazs Toth, Ms Minna Knus-Galán, Mr Atanas Tchobanov, Mr Dirk Liedtke, Mr Nils Mulvad, Mr Hugo van der Parre, Ms Guia Baggi, Mr Marcos García Rey, Mr Mark Lee Hunter, Mr Kristof Clerix, Mr Rui Araujo, Ms Anuška Delić, Mr Jacob Borg, Ms Matilda Bačelić and Mr Gavin Sheridan to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-718/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SPINNING — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)
      (Case T-718/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 16/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o., formerly Aerospinning Master Franchising, Ltd., s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Aerospinning Master Franchising and Mad Dogg Athletics.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.;

                  3.

                  Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case T-637/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/49

      Action brought on 23 October 2018 — Bawtry Carbon International v Commission
      (Case T-637/18)
      (2019/C 16/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the defendant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 194 200,06 EUR, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

                  —

                  in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would have been responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct and the damage relied upon.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).


title: Case C-551/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/28

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK
      (Case C-551/18 PPU)
      (2019/C 16/35)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie

         Party to the main proceedings

         Applicant: IK

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority?

                  3.

                  If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State?

         (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-724/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Transfer of national pension rights — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Duty of the European Union to provide assistance — Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate at first instance — Causation)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
      (Case T-724/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Civil service - Transfer of national pension rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of the European Union to provide assistance - Loss of interest of the applicants in bringing proceedings during the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate at first instance - Causation))
      (2019/C 16/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11, EU:F:2016:194), seeking to have that order set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-134/11) inasmuch as the European Union Civil Service Tribunal held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for damages submitted by Mr Giorgio Cocchi and Ms Nicola Falcione at first instance;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the claims for damages submitted by Mr Cocchi and Ms Falcione in their actions at first instance under case number F-134/11;

                  4.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance so far as the claims for damages are concerned.

         (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-380/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K, B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2003/86/EC — Right to family reunification — Article 12 — Failure to comply with the time limit of three months following the grant of international protection — Beneficiary of subsidiary protection status — Rejection of an application for a visa)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/18

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — K, B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-380/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 2003/86/EC - Right to family reunification - Article 12 - Failure to comply with the time limit of three months following the grant of international protection - Beneficiary of subsidiary protection status - Rejection of an application for a visa))
      (2019/C 16/22)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: K, B

         Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s right to family reunification, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law.

                  2.

                  Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation:

                              —

                              lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable;

                              —

                              lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and

                              —

                              ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case T-827/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Staff report [2015] — Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview — Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor — Remuneration — Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression — Admissibility of evidence — Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s ‘coach’ using a work email account — Liability)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — QB v ECB
      (Case T-827/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal exercise - Staff report [2015] - Possibility of being accompanied by a union representative during the appraisal interview - Infringement of the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality on the part of the assessor - Remuneration - Decision refusing the benefit of a salary progression - Admissibility of evidence - Email exchanged between a member of staff and that person’s ‘coach’ using a work email account - Liability))
      (2019/C 16/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty, seeking (i) annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2015 and the ECB decision of 15 December 2015 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the ECB decisions of 2 May and 15 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim respectively; and (ii) damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls QB’s staff report for 2015 and the European Central Bank (ECB) decision of 15 December 2015 refusing QB the benefit of a salary progression;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by QB.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case C-432/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Part-time workers — Retirement pension — Calculation of the amount of the pension — Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC — Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/19

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs
      (Case C-432/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time workers - Retirement pension - Calculation of the amount of the pension - Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC - Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law))
      (2019/C 16/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Dermod Patrick O’Brien

         Respondent: Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-44/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CAMOMILLA — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Evidence — Counterclaim — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)
      (Case T-44/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CAMOMILLA - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Rejection in part of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Evidence - Counterclaim - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 16/48)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Camomilla Srl (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Mussi and H. Chiappetta, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, A. Stein and G. Rubino, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2250/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between CMT and Camomilla.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the counterclaim;

                  3.

                  Orders Camomilla Srl and CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT) each to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-656/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/30

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2018 — F. v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
      (Case C-656/18)
      (2019/C 16/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Erding

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: F.

         Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
      The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 7 November 2018.


title: Case T-638/18: Action brought on 23 October2018 — Deza v Commission

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/50

      Action brought on 23 October2018 — Deza v Commission
      (Case T-638/18)
      (2019/C 16/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, R. Crespi and S Saez Moreno, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  compensate the applicant for the damage caused to it by the defendant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages suffered by the applicant as a direct consequence of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classified pitch, coal tar, high temp as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410), evaluated at a total amount of 4 784 000,00 CZK, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of the proceedings or by the Court;

                  —

                  in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the defendant is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing the agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered (i.e. either from the date of entry into force of the unlawful classification or from the date when the damage materialised);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay default interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court’s judgment until actual payment; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant caused damage to the applicant by the adoption and entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, (1) classifying the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance. On 22 November 2017, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of the European Commission against the decision of the General Court to partially annul Regulation No 944/2013 insofar as it classified the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) due to a manifest error of assessment. The applicant incurred in costs to apply the unlawful classification. The defendant would be responsible for those costs pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU since the conduct of the defendant is unlawful in that it amounts to a sufficiently serious breach of law, the damage caused is actual and certain and there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the defendant and the damage relied upon.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013, of 2 October 2013, amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ L 261, 3.10.2013, p. 5).


title: Case C-676/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/30

      Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
      (Case C-676/18)
      (2019/C 16/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, C. Cattabriga and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive;

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU;

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Member States were required, under Article 28(1) of Directive 2014/36/EU, to take the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations of that directive by 30 September 2016. In the absence of notification of any measures transposing the directive by Belgium, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.
      In its application, the Commission proposes that a daily periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 be imposed on Belgium. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the seriousness and length of the infringement, as well as the dissuasive effect on the basis of that Member State’s ability to pay.

         (1)  Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 375).


title: Case T-216/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Mabrouk v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Insufficient factual basis — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Principle of good administration — Reasonable time)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Mabrouk v Council
      (Case T-216/17) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and associated persons and entities - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Insufficient factual basis - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Principle of good administration - Reasonable time))
      (2019/C 16/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J.-R. Farthouat, N. Boulay and S. Crosby, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/153 of 27 January 2017 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2017 L 23, p. 19), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/141 of 29 January 2018 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 38), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-685/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 7 November 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
      (Case C-685/18)
      (2019/C 16/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

         Defendant: ND

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) (1) is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?

                  2.

                  If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?

                  3.

                  Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?

                  4.

                  Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?

         (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-241/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 — Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak — Non-harvesting operations — Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2018 — Poland v Commission
      (Case T-241/17) (1)

      ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 - Temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following a deadly enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak - Non-harvesting operations - Extent of the compensation in favour of producers who performed such operations - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 16/50)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Pawlicka, K. Straś and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 39, p. 12), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 4 438 056,66 incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.