title: Case C-346/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Christoph Klein v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical devices — Article 8(1) and (2) — Safeguard clause procedure — Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device — Absence of a decision by the European Commission — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage alleged — Evidence of the existence and extent of the damage)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/9

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Christoph Klein v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-346/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Absence of a decision by the European Commission - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage alleged - Evidence of the existence and extent of the damage))
      (2018/C 399/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, A. Sipos and A.C. Becker, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 September 2016, Klein v Commission (T-309/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2016:570), in so far as it held that Mr Christoph Klein had not established the existence of a direct and sufficient causal link capable of engaging the European Union’s liability;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action brought by Mr Christoph Klein seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained following a breach by the European Commission of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices;

                  4.

                  Orders Mr Christoph Klein and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings;

                  5.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-79/17: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Gmalieva s.r.o. and Others Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom to provide services — Gambling services — Gambling monopoly in a Member State — National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines without prior authorisation from the administrative authorities

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/12

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Gmalieva s.r.o. and Others
      (Case C-79/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Gambling services - Gambling monopoly in a Member State - National legislation prohibiting the operation of slot machines without prior authorisation from the administrative authorities)
      (2018/C 399/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Gmalieva s.r.o., Celik KG, PBW GmbH, Antoaneta Claudia Gruber, Play For Me GmbH, Haydar Demir

         Intervener: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

         Operative part of the order

      It is for the referring court to determine, in the light of the guidance given by the Court of Justice inter alia in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C-390/12, EU:C:2014:281), whether a national statutory monopoly scheme in respect of games of chance, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is to be regarded as coherent, in the light of Article 56 TFEU et seq., where national judicial proceedings have established that:

                  —

                  gambling addiction does not represent a societal problem justifying State intervention;

                  —

                  the playing of prohibited games gives rise to police involvement in an administrative context and not to criminal offences;

                  —

                  annual State income from games of chance exceeds EUR 500 million, being 0,4 % of the annual budget; and

                  —

                  the advertising measures undertaken by licensees also seek principally to entice persons who have not previously played games of chance to do so.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-36/18: Order of the President of the Court of 27 July 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/31

      Order of the President of the Court of 27 July 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-36/18) (1)

      (2018/C 399/40)
      Language of the case: Greek
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case T-313/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Wajos v EUIPO (Form of a container) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Form of a container — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Wajos v EUIPO (Form of a container)
      (Case T-313/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Form of a container - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/70)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a container as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 February 2017 (Case R 1526/2016-1);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case C-620/18: Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/31

      Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
      (Case C-620/18)
      (2018/C 427/40)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

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

         Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services; (1) in the alternative:

                  —

                  annul the provisions of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down point (c) and the third subparagraph of the new Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC;

                  —

                  annul the provisions of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council inserting paragraph 1a in Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC;

                  —

                  annul Article 1(2)(c) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  annul Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and in addition;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Hungarian Government bases its action on five pleas in law:

                  1.

                  In the first place, the Hungarian Government claims in its application that the contested directive was not adopted on the appropriate legal basis, in that, taking into account its purpose and its content, that directive — departing from the legislative authorisation that is laid down in respect of the freedom to provide services in Article 53(1) TFEU and Article 62 TFEU, which are referred to in the directive as the legal basis — applies only, or at least principally, to the protection of workers, meaning that the EU legislature should, for the purpose of adopting the directive, have taken Article 153 TFEU as the legal basis or, at least, as the principal legal basis (first plea in law).

                  2.

                  In the second place, according to the Hungarian Government, the contested directive infringes Article 153(5) TFEU, which excludes the EU’s legislative power in relation to the regulation of pay in the context of employment relationships, as the EU legislature, in establishing that the remuneration of workers must be in accordance with the legislation in force in the Member State of posting, has adopted a rule which relates, in essence, to the remuneration of the employment relationship. The EU legislature selected the legal bases referred to in the contested directive because it saw that, in the absence of EU competence, that was the only way to regulate the issue of remuneration, which is one of the essential elements of that directive, and it thereby acted ultra vires (second plea in law).

                  3.

                  In the third place, the Hungarian Government considers that the contested directive infringes Article 56 TFEU, which enshrines the freedom to provide services, since the obligations and restrictions imposed by that directive on undertakings established in a Member State which post workers to another Member State in the framework of the provision of services are discriminatory, unnecessary and disproportionate with regard to the objective they seek to achieve. In addition, the provisions in the contested directive concerning transport infringe Article 58(1) TFEU (third plea in law).

                  4.

                  In the fourth place, the Hungarian Government considers that the contested directive is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, which enshrines the freedom to provide services, in that the directive excludes from its scope the effective exercise of that freedom inasmuch as it refers to the right to strike and other actions covered by specific industrial relations systems in the Member States and also in so far as it concerns the exercise of the right to negotiate, conclude and enforce collective agreements and to take collective action (fourth plea in law).

                  5.

                  In the fifth place, the contested directive infringes Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, (2) and the principles of legal certainty and legislative clarity, in that it alters the application of Regulation No 593/2008 without amending the wording of that legislation, thus creating considerable legal uncertainty as to the correct application of the regulation. In addition the contested directive infringes the principles of legislative clarity and, consequently, of legal certainty because there is no definition of the concept of remuneration in the contested directive and because of uncertainties as to the interpretation of that concept (fifth plea in law).

         (1)  OJ 2018 L 173, p. 16.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.


title: Case C-522/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2018 — DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2018 — DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle
      (Case C-522/18)
      (2018/C 427/12)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: DŚ

         Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the irremovability of judges, forming part of the principle of effective judicial protection and of the principle of the rule of law, is infringed in the case where a national legislature lowers the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State (for example, from 70 to 65 years) and applies the new lower retirement age to judges in active service, without leaving the decision on whether to take advantage of the lower retirement age to the sole discretion of the judge concerned?

                  2.

                  Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the rule of law and the standard of independence required to ensure effective judicial protection in cases involving EU law are infringed in the case where a national legislature, in breach of the principle of the irremovability of judges, lowers the normal age at which a judge of the court of last instance in a Member State may hold a judicial post from 70 to 65 years, such that continuance in that post is dependent on the discretionary consent of an executive body?

                  3.

                  Should Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as meaning that lowering the retirement age of judges of the court of last instance in a Member State, and making the possibility for an existing judge of that court who has reached the new lower retirement age to continue in his post dependent on the consent of an executive body, constitute discrimination on grounds of age?

                  4.

                  Should Article 2, Article 9 and Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 21 and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of discrimination on grounds of age of the judges of the court of final instance in a Member State, consisting in the lowering of the retirement age from the current 70 years to 65 years, that court — adjudicating in any case with the participation of a judge affected by the effects of such discriminatory national provisions who has not expressed a willingness to take advantage of the new retirement age — is required, when deciding the preliminary issue of the composition of the court, to refuse to apply national provisions that are contrary to Directive 2000/78/EC and Article 21 of the CFR and to continue to adjudicate with the participation of that judge where that is the only effective means of ensuring effective judicial protection of the rights of judges under EU law?

                  5.

                  Should the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 4(3) TEU and Article 2 TEU, Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the CFR, be interpreted as meaning that the rule of law is to be regarded as such a fundamental value of the European Union that, where doubts arise as to the compatibility with that value and with the principle of effective judicial protection arising from it — as regards the independence of the courts and the judiciary — of national provisions which lower the retirement age of judges as described in Questions 1 and 2, a national court must have the power to suspend of its own motion the application of national provisions which infringe the principle of the irremovability of judges in relation to all judges coming within the scope of those provisions?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-374/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 — Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)
      (Case T-374/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882 - Earlier national word marks CUERVO Y SOBRINO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/71)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, and subsequently by S. Ferrandis González, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 (Case R 1141/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between A. Salgado Nespereira and Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the cross-claim;

                  3.

                  Orders Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

                  4.

                  Orders A. Salgado Nespereira, SA to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by EUIPO.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case C-628/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/32

      Action brought on 5 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
      (Case C-628/18)
      (2018/C 427/41)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen and B. Rous Demiri)

         Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by not having adopted (all) of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, and with Directive (EU) 2016/1034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2016 amending Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments, or by not having notified the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2016/1034;

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem penalty payment of EUR 7 224 from delivery of the judgment in the present case, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directives 2014/65/EU and 2016/1034/EU;

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a per diem lump sum of EUR 1 978 multiplied by the number of days for which the infringement has persisted, for a minimum lump sum payment of EUR 496 000; and

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Pursuant to Article 93 of Directive 2014/65/EU, as amended by Article 1 of Directive 2016/1034/EU, the Member States were required to adopt and publish, by 3 July 2017, the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the aforementioned directive and forthwith to communicate those provisions to the Commission. As the Republic of Slovenia did not, within that deadline, communicate to the Commission the measures transposing those directives, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.
      By its action, the Commission claims that the Court should order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a lump sum and a per diem penalty payment.
      The period for transposing the directive expired on 3 July 2017.


title: Case T-435/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HIPANEMA — Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — Aesthetically complementary nature — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/56

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
      (Case T-435/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


title: Case T-591/18: Action brought on 2 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/97

      Action brought on 2 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament
      (Case T-591/18)
      (2018/C 427/128)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision suspending her from her duties;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the administration did not hear her before the decision was adopted, although it would have been possible to hold a hearing without adversely affecting the interests of either the investigation or the service.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is incomplete, vague and neither justified nor supported by precise evidence showing that there was sufficient suspicion that might lead to the conclusion that the applicant breached her duties under the Staff Regulations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the administration could have adopted less severe measures while meeting the needs of the investigation.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, in so far as the administration did not weigh up the applicant’s interests and those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has been working for the Parliament for 15 years, has an excellent relationship with her hierarchical superiors and has very good staff reports, and, moreover, the decision — which was publicised within a short time — adversely affects her person and her reputation.


title: Case C-637/18: Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/33

      Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Hungary
      (Case C-637/18)
      (2018/C 427/42)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen y K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hungary

         Form of order sought by the applicant

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit value applicable to the concentration of PM10 in parts of Budapest (HU0001) and the valley of Sajó (HU0008) each year from 1 February 2005, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; (1)

                  —

                  declare that, by systematically and persistently failing to comply with the daily limit values applicable to the concentration of PM10 in the area of Pécs (HU0006) each year from 11 June 2011 — with the exception of 2014 — Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

                  —

                  declare that, from 11 June 2010, Hungary has failed to fulfil the obligation laid down in Article 23(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XV to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe which provides, in particular, in the second paragraph of that article, that the exceedance period of those limit values should be kept as short as possible;

                  —

                  order Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      From 1 February 2005, the daily limit value of PM10 was exceeded in two air quality zones and, from 11 June 2011, in one additional zone. In spite of that infringement of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50, Hungary, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, has not adopted any appropriate measures within the air quality plans so that the exceedance period could be kept as short as possible.
      The ineffectiveness of the measures at issue is clear from, inter alia, the period of exceeding the limit values, the level and evolution of those limit values, and from the detailed examination of the air quality plans adopted by the Hungarian authorities.

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-532/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 August 2018 — GN, represented by the father HM v ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 August 2018 — GN, represented by the father HM v ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH
      (Case C-532/18)
      (2018/C 427/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: GN, represented by the father HM

         Defendant: ZU, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Niki Luftfahrt GmbH

         Questions referred

      Where a cup of hot coffee, which is located on the shelf of the seat in front of a person in an aircraft in flight, for unknown reasons slides and tips over, causing a passenger to suffer scalding, does this constitute an ‘accident’ triggering a carrier’s liability within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community on the basis of Article 300(2) EC and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001 (Montreal Convention, MC)?

         (1)  Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).


title: Case T-732/17: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Dreute v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Transfer — No longer further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate in part — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/74

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Dreute v Parliament
      (Case T-732/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Transfer - No longer further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate in part - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
      (2018/C 427/100)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Olivier Dreute (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and R. Ignătescu, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 transferring the applicant within that institution, secondly, of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 20 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, if necessary, the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 12 July 2017 seconding the applicant, in the interest of the service, to the European Commission and, on the other hand, damages in respect of the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 12 July 2017.

                  2.

                  There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 30 January 2017 and on the decision of 20 July 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Oliver Dreute against the latter.

                  3.

                  The claim for compensation is rejected as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

                  4.

                  Mr Dreute is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-448/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY — Earlier EU word mark SEVEN — 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:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/57

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
      (Case T-448/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY - Earlier EU word mark SEVEN - 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 427/73)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2291/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-644/18: Action brought on 13 October 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/34

      Action brought on 13 October 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-644/18)
      (2018/C 427/43)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  (1)

                  declare that, by having exceeded on a systematic and continuous basis PM10 concentration values, exceedance which is still ongoing,

                              (a)

                              as regards the daily limits:

                                          —

                                          as from 2008 in the following zones: IT1212 (Sacco Valley zone); IT1215 (agglomeration of Rome); IT1507 (former zone IT1501, ‘improvement zone’ — Naples and Caserta zone); IT0892 (Emilia Romagna, Western Plain); zone IT0893 (Emilia Romagna, Eastern Plain); IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan); IT0307 (agglomeration of Bergamo); IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia); IT0309 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation A); IT0310 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation B); IT0312 (Lombardy, valley D); IT0119 (Piedmont Plain); zone IT0120 (Piedmont High Ground);

                                          —

                                          As from 2009 in the following zones: IT0508 and IT0509 (former zone IT0501, agglomeration of Venice-Treviso); IT0510 (former zone IT0502, agglomeration of Padua); IT0511 (former zone IT0503, agglomeration of Vicenza), IT0512 (former zone IT0504, agglomeration of Verona); IT0513 and IT0514 (former zone IT0505; zone A1 — Veneto Province);

                                          —

                                          in zone IT0907 (Prato Pistoia zone) as from 2008 until 2013 and, again, as from 2015; in zones IT0909 (Valdarno Pisano and Lucca Plain zone) and IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin) as from 2008 until 2012 and, again, as from 2014; in zones IT1008 (Conca Ternana zone) and IT1508 (former zone IT1504, Benevento hilly coastal zone), as from 2008 until 2009 and, again, as from 2011; in zone IT1613 (Apulia — industrial zone), in 2008 and, again, as from 2011; in zone IT1911 (agglomeration of Palermo), as from 2008 until 2012, in 2014 and as from 2016, and

                              (b)

                              as regards the annual limits in the zones:
                              IT1212 (Sacco Valley) as from 2008 and without interruption at least until 2016; IT0508 and IT0509 (former zone IT0501, agglomeration of Venice-Treviso) in 2009, in 2011 and as from 2015; IT0511 (former zone IT0503, agglomeration of Vicenza), in 2011, in 2012 and as from 2015; IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan), IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia), IT0309 (Lombardy, plain with a high level of urbanisation A) and IT0310 (Lombardy, plain B) as from 2008 until 2013 and as from 2015; IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin) as from 2008 until 2012 and as from 2015, the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligation under Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC; and

                  (2)

                  declare that, by failing to adopt as from 11 June 2010 appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for PM10 in the zones referred to in paragraph 1 above, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, on its own and in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV to that directive, to ensure that the period of exceedance of the limit values therein indicated is as short as possible; and

                  (3)

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its first plea in law, the Commission claims that the data collected regarding PM10 concentration in the air demonstrate systematic and continuous infringement of Article 13 of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ [2008 L 152], p. 1). In accordance with those provisions, the level of concentration of those substances cannot exceed fixed daily and annual limits. In certain zones, those limits have been exceeded continuously for over ten years.
      By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, on its own and in conjunction with Part A of Annex XV thereto. In the first place, the air quality plans, adopted following the exceedance of the limit values for PM10 concentration, do not make it possible to comply with those limit values or to limit the exceedance to the shortest period possible. In the second place, many of those plans do not contain the information required under Part A of Annex XV to the Directive, the provision of that information being mandatory under the third subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof.


title: Case T-775/17: Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Estampaciones Rubí v Commission (Action for annulment and for failure to act — State aid — State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market — Implementation of the decision — Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients — Commission’s failure to adopt a position — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/75

      Order of the General Court of 24 September 2018 — Estampaciones Rubí v Commission
      (Case T-775/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment and for failure to act - State aid - State aid - Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State - Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market - Implementation of the decision - Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients - Commission’s failure to adopt a position - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/101)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Estampaciones Rubí, SAU (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: D. Armesto Macías and K. Caminos García, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Principally, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission contained in the documents of 4 December 2012 and 26 March 2013, entitled ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 — Informal message in response to the letter of 7 November (Álava)’ and ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 (Álava) — Informal message in response to the letters sent on 22 February and 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava)’ and, in the alternative, application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s request set out in its letter of 28 July 2017.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed in its entirety as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Estampaciones Rubí, SAU shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-449/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY — Earlier EU word mark SEVEN — International registration designating the European Union — Earlier figurative mark 7SEVEN — 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:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/57

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
      (Case T-449/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SEVENFRIDAY - Earlier EU word mark SEVEN - International registration designating the European Union - Earlier figurative mark 7SEVEN - 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 427/74)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 2292/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Seven and Sevenfriday.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sevenfriday AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case T-592/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/98

      Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission
      (Case T-592/18)
      (2018/C 427/129)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 23 November 2017 refusing her the benefit of the expatriation allowance;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as interpreted by the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C-424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), on the ground that the period during which she resided in Belgium during the reference period with diplomatic status is comparable to a circumstance ‘arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation’.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence.


title: Case T-815/17: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and INEA (Action for annulment — Financial assistance — Project of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks — Preliminary planning services for the new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line — Decision on eligible costs — Incorrect identification of the defendant — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/76

      Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and INEA
      (Case T-815/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Financial assistance - Project of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks - Preliminary planning services for the new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line - Decision on eligible costs - Incorrect identification of the defendant - Not directly affected - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/102)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Korbel, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z.Malůšková, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of INEA’s letter of 11 October 2017 relating to the final financial statement of the eligibility of the sums claimed from the EU financial assistance granted to the project of common interest ‘Services relating to the preliminary planning of a new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line’.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.

                  3.

                  Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

                  4.

                  Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, the Commission, INEA, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs connected with the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-472/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele'on) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Camele’on — Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/58

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele'on)
      (Case T-472/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Camele’on - Earlier international and national word marks CHAMELEON - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, 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: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 570/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilhelm Sihn jr. and in-edit.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-662/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — E.G. v Republic of Slovenia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46(2) — Appeal against a decision refusing to grant refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status — Admissibility — Lack of a sufficient interest where the subsidiary protection status granted by a Member State offers the same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law — Relevance of the applicant’s particular circumstances for the purposes of examining whether the rights and benefits are identical)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/17

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — E.G. v Republic of Slovenia
      (Case C-662/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(2) - Appeal against a decision refusing to grant refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status - Admissibility - Lack of a sufficient interest where the subsidiary protection status granted by a Member State offers the same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law - Relevance of the applicant’s particular circumstances for the purposes of examining whether the rights and benefits are identical))
      (2018/C 455/25)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Referring court

      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: E.G.

         Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

         Operative part of the judgment

      The second paragraph of Article 46(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical.
      Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case C-669/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — Annexes II and III — Designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) — Harbour porpoise)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/8

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-669/16) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 4(1) - Annexes II and III - Designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) - Harbour porpoise))
      (2018/C 455/12)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: G. Brown, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer and M. Armitage, Barristers.)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to propose and transmit, within the period prescribed, pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing, to that extent, to contribute, pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive, to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

                  2.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-425/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Directive 2014/40/EU — Ban on placing tobacco for oral use on the market — Definitions of ‘chewing tobacco’ and ‘tobacco for oral use’ — Paste composed of finely ground tobacco (Thunder Chewing Tobacco) and porous cellulose sachet portions filled with finely ground tobacco (Thunder Frosted Chewing Bags))

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/14

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten,
      (Case C-425/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Directive 2014/40/EU - Ban on placing tobacco for oral use on the market - Definitions of ‘chewing tobacco’ and ‘tobacco for oral use’ - Paste composed of finely ground tobacco (Thunder Chewing Tobacco) and porous cellulose sachet portions filled with finely ground tobacco (Thunder Frosted Chewing Bags)))
      (2018/C 455/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Stadt Kempten

         Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(6) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that only tobacco products which can be consumed in the proper sense only by chewing constitute tobacco products intended to be chewed within the meaning of those provisions, which it is for the national court to determine on the basis of all the relevant objective characteristics of the products concerned, such as their composition, their consistency, their method of dispensation and, where appropriate, their actual use by consumers.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-422/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — FR v Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Decision rejecting an application for international protection — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/18

      Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — FR v Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano
      (Case C-422/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Area of freedom, security and justice - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Decision rejecting an application for international protection - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))
      (2018/C 455/27)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Milano

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: FR

         Defendant: Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano

         Intervening party: Pubblico Ministero

         Operative part of the order

      European Union law, in particular the provisions of 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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for an appeal procedure against a first-instance judgment confirming a decision of the competent administrative authority which rejects an application for international protection, without granting it automatic suspensory effect, but which allows the court which has handed down that judgment to order, upon application by the person concerned, the suspension of its enforcement, after having assessed whether or not the grounds raised in the appeal brought against that judgment are well founded but not whether or not there is a risk of serious and irreparable damage for that applicant as a result of the enforcement of that judgment.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.


title: Case C-503/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/60/EC — Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene — Refuelling of private pleasure craft)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/15

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-503/17) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/60/EC - Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene - Refuelling of private pleasure craft))
      (2018/C 455/22)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene;

                  2.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-605/18: Action brought on 8 October 2018 — ZF v Commission

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/27

      Action brought on 8 October 2018 — ZF v Commission
      (Case T-605/18)
      (2018/C 455/36)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision of 30 November 2017 fixing the applicant’s pension rights with retroactive effect from 6 March 2015 and Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 to recover an alleged overpayment;

                  —

                  order the Commission 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 the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of a measure conferring subjective rights, in that the applicant’s rights were fixed when he entered the service of the EEAS on 1 October 2011 in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits therefore that either that decision was lawful and could not be withdrawn, or it was unlawful and so the withdrawal could take effect only within a reasonable period.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the decision to recruit the applicant as a temporary agent of grade AD 12, step 8 with seniority in step from 1 November 2007 was a lawful decision and in line with the contract binding the parties, and could not be lawfully withdrawn and replaced by a decision applying a corrective coefficient resulting in a marked reduction in the applicant’s remuneration.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission when it decided that the applicant performed duties at the level of head of sector.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to state any relevant reasons.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant could not be informed of a possible irregularity in the decision fixing his rights when he entered the service of the EEAS.


title: Case T-628/18: Action brought on 22 October 2018 — E.J. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/31

      Action brought on 22 October 2018 — E.J. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)
      (Case T-628/18)
      (2018/C 455/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.J. Papadopoulos S.A. (Moschato-Tavros, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.–V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Europastry, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Application for registration No 13 125 265

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 493/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and Europastry, SA, if it becomes intervener, to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-632/18: Action brought on 23 October 2018 — ZM and Others v Council

text:
               17.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 455/32

      Action brought on 23 October 2018 — ZM and Others v Council
      (Case T-632/18)
      (2018/C 455/42)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: ZM, ZN and ZO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Council

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decisions adversely affecting the applicants individually, consisting of the decisions of the appointing authority not to reimburse them for their school fees for the year 2017/2018 which came about in a number of ways depending on the individual circumstances of each of the applicants;

                              —

                              either through an individual decision (more specifically an e-mail) specifying in detail the refusal of the reimbursement;

                              —

                              or by the use of the word ‘processed’ in their Sysper and considered by the applicant to be a rejection decision, given that the subsequent wage slip for the following month (at the earliest on the 10th, since that is the date when the pay slips are issued) contains no reimbursement or only a reimbursement for transport costs;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  —

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in that the defendant’s change of interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of sound administration.

                  —

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.

                  —

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination;

                  —

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that there was no effective weighing-up of the applicants’ interests and that there was a failure to observe the principle of proportionality which vitiated the contested decision.


title: Case T-682/18: Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/55

      Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Twitter v EUIPO — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (PERISCOPE)
      (Case T-682/18)
      (2019/C 25/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Twitter, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PERISCOPE — Application for registration No 13 837 794

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 2315/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as it held that (a) the earlier French mark no. 3 366 460 had been genuinely used for ‘software and computer programs’ in class 9, and (b) that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue for goods and services in classes 9, 41, 42 and 45;

                  —

                  order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal if it joins the proceedings as intervener.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.


title: Case C-667/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 25 October 2018 — Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 25 October 2018 — Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad
      (Case C-667/18)
      (2019/C 25/27)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone

         Defendant: Ministerraad

         Question referred

      Should the term ‘proceedings’ in Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance be interpreted as including extrajudicial and judicial mediation proceedings, as provided for in Articles 1723/1 to 1737 of the Belgian Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Judicial Code)?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1.


title: Case T-399/11 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission (State aid — Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Selectivity — Reference system — Derogation — Difference in treatment — Justification of the difference in treatment — Undertakings benefiting from the measure — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
      (Case T-399/11 RENV) (1)

      ((State aid - Provisions concerning corporate tax allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification of the difference in treatment - Undertakings benefiting from the measure - Legitimate expectations))
      (2019/C 25/44)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent), Ireland (represented by: initially, G. Hodge and E. Creedon, and, subsequently, G. Hodge and M. Browne, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Banco Santander, SA and Santusa Holding, SL to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-679/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Inheritance tax — Sustainably managed woodland — Exemption — Protection of wooded areas)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/13

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts
      (Case C-679/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Inheritance tax - Sustainably managed woodland - Exemption - Protection of wooded areas))
      (2019/C 25/15)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw

         Defendant: Johannes Huijbrechts

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a tax advantage for inherited woodland on condition that it is the subject of sustainable management as defined by national law, but restricts that advantage to woodland situated in the territory of that Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case T-687/18: Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Pilatus Bank v ECB

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/59

      Action brought on 20 November 2018 — Pilatus Bank v ECB
      (Case T-687/18)
      (2019/C 25/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta'Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

         Defendant: ECB

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the ECB’s decisions dated 10 September 2018 to the effect that any communication of Pilatus Bank plc to the ECB needs to be made through the ‘Competent Person’ or include the ‘Competent Person’s’ approval as an attachment;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision lacks any legal basis in national or European law.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated substantive and procedural rights of the applicant pursuant to the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rule of law, in particular the right to access to file, the right to make use of remedies, the right to be represented by external counsel and the right to the confidentiality of communications with the counsel.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the requirement of an appropriately reasoned decision.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to be heard.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.


title: Case T-700/18: Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS)

text:
               21.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/62

      Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO — Wizards of the Coast (DUNGEONS)
      (Case T-700/18)
      (2019/C 25/81)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, Rechtsanwalt)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wizards of the Coast LLC (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DUNGEONS — Application for registration No 13 271 838

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2018 in Case R 599/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-736/18: Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/43

      Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)
      (Case T-736/18)
      (2019/C 65/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Runnebaum Invest GmbH (Diepholz, Germany) (represented by: W. Prinz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berg Toys Beheer BV (Ede, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Bergsteiger — Application for registration No 15 145 791

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 572/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case C-272/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Equal treatment — Income tax — Social security contributions — Worker who left the Member State of her employment during the course of the calendar year — Application of the pro rata temporis rule to social security credit)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/8

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
      (Case C-272/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - Social security contributions - Worker who left the Member State of her employment during the course of the calendar year - Application of the pro rata temporis rule to social security credit))
      (2019/C 93/09)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: K.M. Zyla

         Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, with a view to establishing the amount of social security contributions payable by a worker, provides that the social security component of the tax credit to which a worker is entitled for a calendar year is to be proportionate to the period during which that worker was insured under the social security system of that Member State, thus excluding from that annual credit a fraction proportionate to the period during which that worker was not insured under that social security system and lived in another Member State where he did not engage in professional activity.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case C-326/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) v X, Y and X, Y v Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) v Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/37/EC — Registration documents for vehicles — Omissions in the registration certificates — Mutual recognition — Directive 2007/46/EC — Vehicles manufactured prior to EU harmonisation of technical requirements — Alterations having an impact on the technical characteristics of the vehicle)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) v X, Y and X, Y v Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) v Z
      (Case C-326/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Omissions in the registration certificates - Mutual recognition - Directive 2007/46/EC - Vehicles manufactured prior to EU harmonisation of technical requirements - Alterations having an impact on the technical characteristics of the vehicle))
      (2019/C 93/11)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW), X, Y

         Defendants: X, Y, Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW), Z

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(a) of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, read in conjunction with Article 3(11) and (13) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 1999/37 is applicable to the documents issued by Member States at the time of the registration of vehicles manufactured before 29 April 2009, the date of expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 2007/46.

                  2.

                  Article 4 of Directive 1999/37, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of the Member State in which the new registration of a second-hand vehicle is sought are entitled to refuse to recognise the registration certificate issued by the Member State in which the vehicle was previously registered where some mandatory data are missing, the data mentioned on the certificate do not match the vehicle and the certificate does not make it possible to identify the vehicle.

                  3.

                  Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the regime provided for therein does not apply to a second-hand vehicle already registered in a Member State which is, on the basis of Article 4 of Directive 1999/37, submitted for re-registration before another Member State authority which is competent in that regard. However, if there is evidence that the vehicle presents a risk to road safety, that authority may, pursuant to Article 5(a) of Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, require the vehicle to be submitted for testing prior to registration.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-206/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/21

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic
      (Case C-206/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/24)
      Language of the case: Polish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.