title: Case C-633/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 October 2018 by Apple Distribution International against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2018 in Case T-101/17: Apple Distribution International v European Commission

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/31

      Appeal brought on 11 October 2018 by Apple Distribution International against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 July 2018 in Case T-101/17: Apple Distribution International v European Commission
      (Case C-633/18 P)
      (2018/C 436/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Apple Distribution International (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, Rechtsanwälte, N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, A. Patsa, Advocate)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested order in its entirety;

                  —

                  declare that Apple is directly and individually concerned by the contested decision;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay its own costs and Apple’s costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Apple submits that the contested order is vitiated by errors of law:

                  —

                  First, the General Court distorts and fails to consider relevant evidence in assessing whether Apple's competitive position on the market for the provision of home video entertainment services in Germany is substantially affected by the contested decision (1).

                  —

                  Second, the General Court misapplies the legal test for assessing individual concern in finding that Apple does not belong to a closed group of undertakings who were identifiable when the contested decision was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of that group.

                  —

                  Third, the General Court infringes Article 119 of its Rules of Procedure and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by not stating reasons for concluding that: (i) the evidence adduced by Apple to assess the impact that the aid might have on its competitive position on the market for the provision of home video entertainment services in Germany is insufficient; and (ii) the existence of individual concern must be established by reference to the point in time when the contested measure is devised, adopted and implemented at national level.

                  —

                  Fourth, the General Court infringes Apple's rights of defence by relying on observations the Commission submitted in response to questions by the General Court, which Apple did not have an opportunity to comment upon.

         (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 63).


title: Case C-521/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari and Others v Poste Tutela SpA

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2018 — Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari and Others v Poste Tutela SpA
      (Case C-521/18)
      (2018/C 436/24)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Pegaso Srl Servizi Fiduciari, Sistemi di Sicurezza Srl, YW

         Defendant: Poste Tutela SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the company Poste Italiane s.p.a., on the basis of characteristics set out above, be classified as a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016 and of the relevant EU directives (2014/23/EU (1), 2014/24/EU (2) and 2014/25/EU (3))?

                  2.

                  Should that classification be extended to include the wholly owned subsidiary company Poste Tutela s.p.a — whose merger with Poste Italiane s.p.a is already under way — bearing in mind what is stated in recital 46 of Directive 2014/23/EU concerning controlled legal persons? (see also, in this respect, judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2017, Case [C-567/15]: competitive tendering requirement for companies controlled by public authorities; judgment No 6211 of the Council of State, Chamber VI, of 24 November 2011.)

                  3.

                  Are those companies, as contracting entities, required to conduct competitive tendering procedures only when awarding contracts in connection with activities carried out in the special sectors, pursuant to Directive 2014/25/EU — such contracting entities having to be deemed bodies governed by public law under the rules laid down in Part II of the Public Procurement Code — whilst, on the other hand, having unfettered freedom and being subject only to private-sector rules for contracts not connected to such sectors, bearing in mind the principles set out in recital 21 and Article 16 of Directive 2014/23/EU?

                  4.

                  On the other hand, with regard to contracts considered not to be directly connected with the specific activities covered by the special sectors, are those companies, where they satisfy the requirements for being classified as bodies governed by public law, subject to the general Directive 2014/24/EU (and therefore to the rules governing competitive tendering procedures), even when performing primarily entrepreneurial activities under competitive market conditions, having developed from when they were originally established?

                  5.

                  In any event, in the case of offices in which activities connected to the universal service and activities unrelated to it are both performed, may the concept of functionality, in connection with a service which is specifically in the public interest, be said to be inapplicable as regards contracts relating to ordinary and extraordinary maintenance, cleaning, furnishing, caretaking and storage services for such offices?

                  6.

                  Finally, were the arguments of Poste Italiane s.p.a. to be endorsed, should the fact that a decision to organise a competitive tendering procedure has been taken without there being any obligation to conduct such a procedure — which is not subject to all the guarantees of transparency and equal treatment, as governed by the Public Procurement Code — and the fact that the decision is duly published without any further notice in that regard in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic and the Official Journal of the European Union, be regarded as incompatible with the established principle that the legitimate expectations of tenderers must be protected?

         (1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

         (3)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).


title: Case C-105/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 2(b) and (d) — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 2(2) — Concepts of ‘trader’ and ‘commercial practices’)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova
      (Case C-105/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 2(b) and (d) - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(2) - Concepts of ‘trader’ and ‘commercial practices’))
      (2018/C 436/09)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad — Varna

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite

         Defendant: Evelina Kamenova

         Other party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) and Article 2(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, such as the defendant in the main proceedings, who publishes simultaneously on a website a number of advertisements offering new and second-hand goods for sale can be classified as a ‘trader’, and such an activity can constitute a ‘commercial practice’, only if that person is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, this being a matter for the national court to determine, in the light of all relevant circumstances of the individual case.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-584/18: Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/57

      Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB
      (Case T-584/18)
      (2018/C 436/81)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC (Solone, Ukraine) and Versobank AS (Talinn, Estonia) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul decision ECB/SSM/2018–EE-2 WHD-2017-0012 of 17 July 2018 withdrawing the banking licence of Versobank AS;

                  —

                  annul, accordingly, the cost order ECB-SSM-2018-EE-3 of 14 August 2018 regarding the internal administrative review;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on twenty-four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB lacks the competence for a decision with respect to the liquidation of Versobank AS.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to make its own assessment as regards the underlying anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) issues.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to investigate and to appraise carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging illegitimate reliance on an alleged submission of incorrect information with respect to the Latvian activities of Versobank.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging failure by the ECB to take into account the positive role of the highly competent and reputable management team.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging failure by the ECB to define the relevant regulatory requirements with which Versobank allegedly failed to comply.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging failure to take into account that a substantial part of the business did not involve a significant AML-risk.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient weight to the considerable reduction of customers in higher risk categories.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging an erroneous assumption that any further remedial action would not be realistic.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards a potential new management board.

                  11.

                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards a potential suspension of voting rights.

                  12.

                  Twelfth plea in law, alleging erroneous reliance on an alleged non-compliance with a precept.

                  13.

                  Thirteenth plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards the possibility of a further precept.

                  14.

                  Fourteenth plea in law, alleging an illegitimate denial of the opportunity of self-liquidation.

                  15.

                  Fifteenth plea in law, alleging illegitimate denial of the opportunity of a sale.

                  16.

                  Sixteenth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and discrimination.

                  17.

                  Seventeenth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

                  18.

                  Eighteenth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                  19.

                  Nineteenth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 19 of and recital 75 in the preamble to Regulation No 1024/2013 (1) and misuse of power.

                  20.

                  Twentieth plea in law, alleging violation of right to be heard of Versobank and of the shareholders because of an unduly short comment period.

                  21.

                  Twenty-first plea in law, alleging further violations of Versobank’s rights of defence and rights to be heard.

                  22.

                  Twenty-second plea in law, alleging failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.

                  23.

                  Twenty-third plea in law, alleging violation of Versobank’s rights of access to the file.

                  24.

                  Twenty-fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the shareholders’ rights in connection with the review carried out by the Administrative Board of Review pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation No 1024/2013.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).


title: Case T-585/18: Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Şanli v Council

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/59

      Action brought on 27 September 2018 — Şanli v Council
      (Case T-585/18)
      (2018/C 436/82)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Dalokay Şanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Council of 31 July 2018;

                  —

                  remove the applicant from the list referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of essential formal requirements and infringement of the Treaties.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that there has been no evidence submitted in the proceedings proving that the applicant has carried out terrorist act.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unable to defend himself adequately in the procedure that led to the contested decision.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is inadequately reasoned.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in infringement of the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable given that the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adopted decision is contrary to the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-541/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2018 — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2018 — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
      (Case C-541/18)
      (2018/C 436/25)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AS

         Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

         Question referred

      Does a sign have distinctive character when there are in practice significant and obvious possibilities for it to be used as an indication of origin in respect of goods or services, even if this is not the most likely form of use of the sign? (1)

         (1)  Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-242/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA v Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Bioliquids used for a thermal energy plant — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 17 — Sustainability criteria for bioliquids — Article 18 — National sustainability certification systems — Implementing Decision 2011/438/EU — Voluntary sustainability certification systems for biofuels and bioliquids approved by the European Commission — National legislation requiring intermediary operators to submit sustainability certificates — Article 34 TFEU — Free movement of goods)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/10

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA v Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
      (Case C-242/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Bioliquids used for a thermal energy plant - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 17 - Sustainability criteria for bioliquids - Article 18 - National sustainability certification systems - Implementing Decision 2011/438/EU - Voluntary sustainability certification systems for biofuels and bioliquids approved by the European Commission - National legislation requiring intermediary operators to submit sustainability certificates - Article 34 TFEU - Free movement of goods))
      (2018/C 436/11)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Legatoria Editoriale Giovanni Olivotto (LEGO) SpA

         Respondents: Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 18(7) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, read in conjunction with Commission Implementing Decision 2011/438/EU of 19 July 2011 on the recognition of the ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) system for demonstrating compliance with the sustainability criteria under Directives 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which imposes requirements on economic operators which, for the certification of the sustainability of bioliquids, are specific, different and more extensive than those imposed by a voluntary sustainability certification system, such as the ISCC system, recognised by that implementing decision, adopted by the European Commission in accordance with Article 18(4) of that directive, in so far as that system was approved only in respect of biofuels and in so far as those conditions concern only bioliquids.

                  2.

                  EU law, in particular Article 34 TFEU and Article 18(1) and (3) of Directive 2009/28, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a national sustainability verification system for bioliquids under which all the economic operators involved in the supply chain of the product, even when they are intermediaries which do not take physical possession of the batches of bioliquids, are bound by certain requirements relating to certification, communication and the provision of information imposed by that system.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-544/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 20 August 2018 — HM Revenue & Customs v HD

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/20

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 20 August 2018 — HM Revenue & Customs v HD
      (Case C-544/18)
      (2018/C 436/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: HM Revenue & Customs

         Defendant: HD

         Question referred

      Must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that such a person, who ceases self-employed activity in circumstances where there are physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, retains the status of being self-employed, within the meaning of that Article, provided she returns to economic activity or seeking work within a reasonable period after the birth of her child?


title: Case C-635/18: Action brought on 11 October 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/32

      Action brought on 11 October 2018 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-635/18)
      (2018/C 436/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes und A.C. Becker, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, since 2010, the Federal Republic of Germany has breached its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC (1) by systematically and continuously exceeding the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in 26 zones of air quality assessment and management (DEZBXX0001A agglomeration of Berlin, DEZCXX0007A agglomeration of Stuttgart, DEZCXX0043S district of Tübingen, DEZCXX0063S district of Stuttgart, DEZCXX0004A agglomeration of Freiburg, DEZCXX0041S district of Karlsruhe (without agglomerations), DEZCXX0006A agglomeration of Mannheim/Heidelberg, DEZDXX0001A agglomeration of Munich, DEZDXX0003A agglomeration of Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen, DEZFXX0005S zone III Central and Northern Hesse, DEZFXX0001A agglomeration I (Rhine-Main), DEZFXX0002A agglomeration II (Kassel), DEZGLX0001A agglomeration of Hamburg, DEZJXX0015A Grevenbroich (Rhineland lignite mining area), DEZJXX0004A Cologne, DEZJXX0009A Düsseldorf, DEZJXX0006A Essen, DEZJXX0017A Duisburg, Oberhausen, Mülheim, DEZJXX0005A Hagen, DEZJXX0008A Dortmund, DEZJXX0002A Wuppertal, DEZJXX0011A Aachen, DEZJXX0016S urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia, DEZKXX0006S Mainz, DEZKXX0007S Worms/Frankenthal/Ludwigshafen, DEZKXX0004S Koblenz/Neuwied) and the hourly limit value for NO2 in two of those zones (DEZCXX0007A agglomeration of Stuttgart, DEZFXX0001A agglomeration I (Rhine-Main));

                  —

                  declare that, since 11 June 2010, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to, the same directive and in particular the obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible in the 26 zones in question;

                  —

                  order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Since 2010, the Federal Republic of Germany has systematically and continuously exceeded the annual and hourly NO2 limit values set out in Annex XI in 26 and 2 areas respectively, and has thereby infringed Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
      Contrary to the second and third subparagraphs of Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, the directive, since 11 June 2010, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to adopt measures in the air quality plans of the 26 zones in question which would be appropriate to keep the exceedance period as short as possible. The inappropriateness of the measures results from, inter alia, the duration, trend and severity of the exceedances of the limit values and the examination of the air quality plans established for the zones in question.

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-337/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Special jurisdiction — Article 7(1)(a) — Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ — Actio pauliana)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
      (Case C-337/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(1)(a) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Actio pauliana))
      (2018/C 436/12)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Feniks Sp. z o.o.

         Defendant: Azteca Products & Services SL

         Operative part of the judgment

      In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an actio pauliana, whereby the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor, is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a) 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.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-548/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2018 — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2018 — BGL BNP Paribas SA v TeamBank AG Nürnberg
      (Case C-548/18)
      (2018/C 436/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Saarländisches Oberlandesgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: BGL BNP Paribas SA

         Respondent: TeamBank AG Nürnberg

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I Regulation) (1) applicable to the third-party effects of multiple assignments of claims?

                  2.

                  If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?

                  3.

                  If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is that provision applicable mutatis mutandis?

                  4.

                  If the third question is to be answered in the affirmative, to which law are the third-party effects subject in this case?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.


title: Case T-368/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Electrically operated lifting column) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electrically operated lifting column — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — No different overall impression — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Electrically operated lifting column)
      (Case T-368/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electrically operated lifting column - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Informed user - No different overall impression - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
      (2018/C 436/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and A. Folliard-Monguiral, and subsequently by G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1412/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Linak and ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Linak A/S to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case C-650/18: Action brought on 17 October 2018 — Hungary v European Parliament

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/33

      Action brought on 17 October 2018 — Hungary v European Parliament
      (Case C-650/18)
      (2018/C 436/46)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Tornyai and Zs. Wagner, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the European Parliament’s resolution of 12 September 2018 on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the Hungarian Government relies on four pleas in law:

                  1.

                  The Hungarian Government takes the view that, at the vote on the contested resolution, the European Parliament seriously infringed Article 354 TFEU and its own rules of procedure. Out of the votes cast by the Members of the European Parliament, only the votes for and against were counted, excluding abstentions, which is contrary to Article 354 TFEU and Article 178(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. If the abstentions had been counted, the result of the voting would have been different (first plea in law).

                  2.

                  Second, the President of the European Parliament did not consult the European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in relation to the interpretation of the rules of procedure, in spite of the fact that, before the vote, there were justified doubts as to the method of counting the votes. Consequently, it infringed the principle of legal certainty given that, both before and after the vote, uncertainty existed or remained regarding the interpretation of the rules of procedure (second plea in law).

                  3.

                  Third, the Hungarian Government submits that, at the vote on the contested resolution, the democratic rights of the Members of the European Parliament, the principle of equal treatment of the Members and the principle of direct democracy were all infringed. The Members could not exercise their rights necessary for carrying out their duties of representing the people in accordance with the principle of democracy, which also includes the possibility of abstention (third plea in law).

                  4.

                  Fourth, the Hungarian Government takes the view that the contested resolution infringes the fundamental principle of sincere cooperation between the EU institutions and the Member States in accordance with Article 4(3) TEU, and EU law principles such as the principle of sincere cooperation between EU institutions, the principle of legitimate expectation and the principle of legal certainty, since that resolution contains statements which refer to infringement proceedings which have already been concluded or are still ongoing (fourth plea in law).


title: Case C-550/18: Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/21

      Action brought on 27 August 2018 — European Commission v Ireland
      (Case C-550/18)
      (2018/C 436/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen, Agents)

         Defendant: Ireland

         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, in relation to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015, L 141, p. 73), Ireland has failed to adopt by 26 June 2017 at the latest all provisions transposing that Directive or, in any event, has failed to notify the Commission of any such measures, such that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67(1) of that Directive;

                  —

                  impose a penalty payment on Ireland pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU in the amount of EUR 17 190,60, with effect from the date of the judgment of the Court, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive (EU) 2015/849;

                  —

                  impose the payment of a lump sum on Ireland pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU in the amount of daily amount of EUR 4 701,20 per day multiplied by the number of days of continued infringement with the minimum lump sum of EUR 1 685 000; and

                  —

                  order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By virtue of Article 67(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 Member States must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive by 26 June 2017 and must immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission. Given the on-going lack of transposition of that Directive, the Commission decided to commence proceedings before the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-444/17: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark life coins — Earlier EU word mark LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)
      (Case T-444/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark life coins - Earlier EU word mark LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - 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 436/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Medion AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hagemeier, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1569/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Medion and CompuGroup Medical.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CompuGroup Medical AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Medion AG.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case C-379/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial co-operation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters — Time limit laid down in the law of the Member State addressed for enforcing a preventive attachment order — Applicability of that time limit to a preventive attachment instrument obtained in another Member State and declared enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/12

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl
      (Case C-379/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial co-operation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters - Time limit laid down in the law of the Member State addressed for enforcing a preventive attachment order - Applicability of that time limit to a preventive attachment instrument obtained in another Member State and declared enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought))
      (2018/C 436/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment order, from being applied in the case of an order which has been adopted in another Member State and is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-602/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/60

      Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission
      (Case T-602/18)
      (2018/C 436/84)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Enguera (Enguera, Spain) (represented by: J. Palau Navarro, J. Ortiz Ballester and V. Soriano i Piqueras, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 26 July 2018 of the Head of Unit, ‘ENV.D.4 — Life Programme’, of Directorate ‘ENV.D Natural Capital’ of the Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission, under the subject matter ‘LIFE 10 ENV/ES/000458 — ECOGLAUGA ÉRGON — Confirmation of recovery order’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, on account of the failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the inaccuracy of the reasons stated, if it is found that there is implicit reasoning.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as:

                              —

                              The right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, has been disregarded. In the present case, neither were the applicant’s written submissions taken into account in any way, nor was it invited to submit arguments prior to the adoption of the final decision;

                              —

                              The applicant’s requests to access the file in its entirety have been ignored;

                              —

                              Although the applicant has at all times corresponded with the defendant in Spanish, the Commission has issued all of its communications and decisions in English.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition of arbitrariness on the part of public authorities, inasmuch as the contested decision fails to apply the appropriate scientific norms or criteria, but instead applies a mere subjective criterion reducing or cancelling, without justification, all financial participation by the European Union in an approved project.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the Commission, in adopting its decision, departed from its previous decisions, in which it fully confirmed its agreement with the activities developed by the applicant, with the result that the applicant was subject to a sudden and incomprehensible decision could not have been anticipated on the basis of the Commission’s previous behaviour.


title: Case C-552/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2018 — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2018 — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto
      (Case C-552/18)
      (2018/C 436/29)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, Coop. sociale il Melograno

         Respondent: Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

         Question referred

      Does EU law, more specifically Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) on public procurement, in conjunction with recital 101 of the directive and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, preclude national legislation, such as that at issue, which categorises ‘grave professional misconduct’ as a mandatory ground of exclusion of an economic operator and provides that, where the professional misconduct has led to the early termination of a public contract, the operator may be excluded only if the termination is not contested or is confirmed at the conclusion of judicial proceedings?

         (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-533/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark — Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] — Complementarity of the goods — Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark — Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration — Legal certainty)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)
      (Case T-533/17) (1)

      ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark - Earlier EU word marks NANU and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] - Complementarity of the goods - Principles of autonomy and independence of the EU trade mark - Principles of compliance with the law and sound administration - Legal certainty))
      (2018/C 436/64)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 (Case R 1448/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp and Next design+produktion.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Next design+produktion GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-557/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2018 — Eurowings GmbH v JJ and KI

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 31 August 2018 — Eurowings GmbH v JJ and KI
      (Case C-557/18)
      (2018/C 436/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Defendant and appellant: Eurowings GmbH

         Applicants and respondents: JJ, KI

         Question referred

      Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a tour operator which combined the flights for its customer?

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


title: Case T-603/18: Action brought on 9 September 2018 — ZE v Parliament

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/61

      Action brought on 9 September 2018 — ZE v Parliament
      (Case T-603/18)
      (2018/C 436/85)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: ZE (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 25 September 2018 ordering that he be suspended from his duties until 31 October 2018, and any other connected measure.

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging breach of his right to be heard before the contested decision was taken against him;

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of information collected by a method which infringes the right to good administration enshrined in Art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality by the Secretary General, in so far he ordered the opening of an administrative investigation against the applicant and also adopted the contested decision;

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest breach of his right to privacy due to being prohibited from having access to his workplace and to his personal files;

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and of the confidential nature of proceedings, having regard to statements made to the press by senior officials of the European Parliament.


title: Case C-384/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Road transport — Tax provisions — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Toll — Obligation of the Member States to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Flat-rate fine — Principle of proportionality — Direct applicability of the directive)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/12

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
      (Case C-384/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Road transport - Tax provisions - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Toll - Obligation of the Member States to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Flat-rate fine - Principle of proportionality - Direct applicability of the directive))
      (2018/C 436/14)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N

         Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

         Operative part of the judgment

      The requirement of proportionality in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, cannot be regarded as having direct effect.
      The national court must, by virtue of its duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the implementation of that provision, interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, disapply any national provision in so far as its application would, in the circumstances of the case, lead to a result contrary to EU law.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-548/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ANOKHI — Earlier EU figurative mark kipling — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a monkey — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 EU) — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)
      (Case T-548/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark ANOKHI - Earlier EU figurative mark kipling - Earlier EU figurative mark representing the silhouette of a monkey - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 EU) - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ken Virmani (Munich, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2017 (Case R 2307/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between VF International and Mr Virmani.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 May 2017 (Case R 2307/2015-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by VF International Sagl.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-559/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
      (Case C-559/18)
      (2018/C 436/31)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

         Question referred

      Is the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1218/2012 [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 12 December 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that static converters such as those in the present case are to be classified under subheading 8504 4030 only if they are used principally with telecommunication apparatus, automatic data-processing machines and units thereof, or is it sufficient, for the purpose of satisfying the characteristic ‘of a kind used’, if the converters can also, in view of their objective characteristics, be used with telecommunication apparatus, automatic data-processing machines and units thereof, in addition to other applications?

         (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 36.


title: Case C-416/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Series of charges to tax — Difference in treatment according to the Member State of residence of the sub-subsidiary — Reimbursement of the advance payment of tax unduly paid — Requirements relating to the evidence establishing a right to such reimbursement — Capping of the right to reimbursement — Discrimination — National court adjudicating at last instance — Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — European Commission v French Republic
      (Case C-416/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Series of charges to tax - Difference in treatment according to the Member State of residence of the sub-subsidiary - Reimbursement of the advance payment of tax unduly paid - Requirements relating to the evidence establishing a right to such reimbursement - Capping of the right to reimbursement - Discrimination - National court adjudicating at last instance - Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling))
      (2018/C 436/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents,)

         Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. de Moustier, A. Alidière and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by refusing to take into account, in order to calculate the reimbursement of the advance payment made by a resident company in respect of the distribution of dividends paid by a non-resident company via a non-resident subsidiary, the tax incurred by that second company on the profits underlying those dividends, even though the national mechanism for the avoidance of economic double taxation allows, in the case of a purely domestic chain of interests, the tax levied on the dividends distributed by a company at every level of that chain of interests to be offset, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 63 TFEU;

                  2.

                  Declares that, since the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) failed to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with the procedure provided for in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in order to determine whether it was necessary to refuse to take into account, for the purpose of calculating the reimbursement of the advance payment made by a resident company in respect of the distribution of dividends paid by a non-resident company via a non-resident subsidiary, the tax incurred by that second company on the profits underlying those dividends, even though its interpretation of the provisions of EU law in the judgments of 10 December 2012, Rhodia (FR:CESSR:2012:317074.20121210), and of 10 December 2012, Accor (FR:CESSR:2012:317075.20121210), was not so obvious as to leave no scope for doubt, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case T-581/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout Textielagenturen (Representation of four crossing lines) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark representing four crossed lines — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — Asics v EUIPO — Van Lieshout Textielagenturen (Representation of four crossing lines)
      (Case T-581/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark representing four crossed lines - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Asics Corporation (Kobe, Japan) (represented by: M. Polo Carreño and H. Granado Carpenter, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Van Lieshout Textielagenturen BV (Haaren, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Claassen and B. Woltering, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 (Case R 2129/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Asics Corporation and Van Lieshout Textielagenturen.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Asics Corporation to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-79/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage — No formal investigation procedure — Locus standi — Notion of interested party — Admissibility — Infringement of procedural rights — Serious difficulties — Substantial effect on the competitive position of the competing undertakings)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission
      (Case T-79/16) (1)

      ((State aid - Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage - No formal investigation procedure - Locus standi - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - Infringement of procedural rights - Serious difficulties - Substantial effect on the competitive position of the competing undertakings))
      (2018/C 436/47)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicants: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters (Hoenderloo, Netherlands) and 21 other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the judgment (represented by: H. Viaene, D. Gillet and T. Ruys, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and 12 other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to the judgment (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2006 C 9, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I;

                  3.

                  Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and the other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-478/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — IQ v JP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 15 — Transfer to a court better placed to hear the case — Scope — Article 19 — Lis pendens)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/14

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — IQ v JP
      (Case C-478/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 15 - Transfer to a court better placed to hear the case - Scope - Article 19 - Lis pendens))
      (2018/C 436/16)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: IQ

         Respondent: JP

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, in which both courts seised have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under Articles 12 and 8, respectively, of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-607/18: Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/62

      Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Essity Hygiene and Health/EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)
      (Case T-607/18)
      (2018/C 436/86)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of an EU figurative mark of a representation of a leaf — Application for registration No 16 709 305

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 21962017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims principally that the Court should:

                  1.

                  annul the contested decision in its entirety, and

                              (a)

                              confirm that the mark applied for has the required distinctiveness as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods refused in Classes 3 and 16

                              (b)

                              annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

                              (c)

                              refer the case back before the Board of Appeal for examination as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’;

                  2.

                  order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of the action before both the General Court and EUIPO.

            In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

                  2.

                  refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

                  3.

                  order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court.

            In the further alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  annul the contested decision as regards the goods in Class 21 refused by the Board of Appeal

                  2.

                  refer the case back before the Board of Appeal as regards ‘wiping cloths for cleaning; rags for cleaning’

                  3.

                  order EUIPO to pay that part of the applicant’s costs which the Court considers appropriate.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-599/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 — Reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of the market abuse regulation — Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/14

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-599/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 - Reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of the market abuse regulation - Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period))
      (2018/C 436/17)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Rius and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2015/2392 of 17 December 2015 on Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards reporting to competent authorities of actual or potential infringements of that regulation, and by failing to communicate to the European Commission the text of the provisions adopted to transpose that implementing directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that implementing directive, in particular under the first paragraph of Article 13 thereof;

                  2.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case C-564/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2018 — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2018 — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
      (Case C-564/18)
      (2018/C 436/32)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: LH

         Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  May the provisions on inadmissible applications in Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’), be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s legislation pursuant to which an application is inadmissible in the context of the asylum procedure when the applicant has arrived in that Member State, Hungary, via a country where he is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed?

                  2.

                  May Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 31 of the Procedures Directive — having regard also to the provisions of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights — be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation complies with those provisions when it lays down a mandatory time limit of eight days for the administrative-law proceedings before a court in respect of applications declared inadmissible in asylum procedures?

         (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


title: Case C-45/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman (Appeal — Application for revision — Conditions for admissibility)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/15

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman
      (Case C-45/18 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Application for revision - Conditions for admissibility))
      (2018/C 436/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018


title: Case C-565/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 6 September 2018 — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 6 September 2018 — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso
      (Case C-565/18)
      (2018/C 436/33)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Société Générale S.A.

         Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

         Question referred

      Should Articles 18, 56 and 63 TFEU preclude national legislation from charging a tax on financial transactions — irrespective of the State of residence of the financial market participants and the intermediary — which is payable by the counterparties to the transaction and consists of a fixed amount which rises incrementally in ranges of trading values and which varies according to the type of instrument traded and the value of the contract, and which is due by virtue of the fact that the taxable transactions concern the trading of a derivative based on a security issued by a company resident in the State imposing that tax?


title: Case T-364/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Modification of the TARIC additional code for a company — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Whether directly concerned — Individual concern — Admissibility — Effect of a judgment annulling a decision — Rule of equivalence of form)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Commission
      (Case T-364/16) (1)

      ((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Modification of the TARIC additional code for a company - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Whether directly concerned - Individual concern - Admissibility - Effect of a judgment annulling a decision - Rule of equivalence of form))
      (2018/C 436/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic) and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2015 L 322, p. 21).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the European Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129, with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and the other applicants whose names are annexed.

         (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-644/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel) (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark Sustainablel — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)
      (Case T-644/17) (1)

      ((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union word mark Sustainablel - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001)))
      (2018/C 436/67)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: DNV GL AS (Høvik, Norway) (represented by: J. Albers and N. Köster, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word mark Sustainablel as a European Union trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders DNV GL AS to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-619/18: Action brought on 15 October 2018 — TUIfly v Commission

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/63

      Action brought on 15 October 2018 — TUIfly v Commission
      (Case T-619/18)
      (2018/C 436/88)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: TUIfly GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Giesberts and M. Gayger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 on the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2018/2506 and order the defendant to grant the applicant access to the documents in the proceedings relating to State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);

                  —

                  join the present case to the applicant’s case pending before the General Court with case number T-447/18 against the defendant for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The claim is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission did not grant the applicant access to the investigation documents and failed to place it in a position in which it could properly defend itself.


title: Case T-672/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Mamas and Papas v EUIPO — Wall-Budden (Cot bumpers) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cot bumper — Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure — Principle of functional continuity — Insufficient evidence to establish disclosure)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Mamas and Papas v EUIPO — Wall-Budden (Cot bumpers)
      (Case T-672/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cot bumper - Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure - Principle of functional continuity - Insufficient evidence to establish disclosure))
      (2018/C 436/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Mamas and Papas Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister, and by B. Whitehead, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, D. Walicka and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Jane Wall-Budden (Byfleet, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2017 (Case R 208/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mamas and Papas and Jane Wall-Budden.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mamas and Papas Ltd to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-613/13: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2018 — alfavet Tierarzneimittel v EUIPO — Millet Innovation (Epibac)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/64

      Order of the General Court of 8 October 2018 — alfavet Tierarzneimittel v EUIPO — Millet Innovation (Epibac)
      (Case T-613/13) (1)

      (2018/C 436/89)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-569/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 September 2018 — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 September 2018 — Caseificio Cirigliana Srl and Others v Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali and Others
      (Case C-569/18)
      (2018/C 436/34)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants at first instance and appellants in the present proceedings: Caseificio Cirigliana Srl, Mail Srl, Sorì Italia Srl

         Defendants at first instance and respondents in the present proceedings: Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero della Salute

         Question referred

      Should Articles 3, 26, 32, 40 and 41 of the TFEU and Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation 1151/2012/EU (1) on the Protected Designation of Origin, which require Member States to guarantee both free competition in respect of goods within the European Union and protection for quality schemes to support less favoured agricultural areas, be interpreted as precluding a restriction being imposed under national law (Article 4 of Decree Law No 91 of 24 June 2014, as converted into law by Law No 116 of 11 August 2014) on the production of PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana, which is to be made in factories dedicated exclusively to such production, in which the holding and storage of milk originating from farms not included in the monitoring system for PDO Mozzarella di Bufala Campana is prohibited?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).


title: Case T-567/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Occupational disease — Occupational origin of the disease — Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Invalidity Committee — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions
      (Case T-567/16) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Occupational disease - Occupational origin of the disease - Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Invalidity Committee - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-material damage))
      (2018/C 436/50)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: J. C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 2 December 2014 confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee of 7 May 2014 by which it rejected the applicant’s request to recognise the occupational origin of the disease from which he is suffering and, secondly, to compensate for the non-material damage of EUR 25 000 which the applicant allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 2 December 2014 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the disease resulting in Mr Robert McCoy's invalidity within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.

                  2.

                  Orders the Committee of the Regions to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 5 000.

                  3.

                  Orders the Committee of the Regions is to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-139/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-871/16: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/64

      Order of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA
      (Case T-871/16) (1)

      (2018/C 436/90)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 30.4.2017.


title: Case T-822/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark iGrill — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)
      (Case T-822/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark iGrill - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 436/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 (Case R 579/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign iGrill as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Weber-Stephen Products LLC to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-96/18: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/64

      Order of the General Court of 11 October 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)
      (Case T-96/18) (1)

      (2018/C 436/91)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.