title: Case T-746/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Bronckers v Commission

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Bronckers v Commission
      (Case T-746/18)
      (2019/C 72/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the (implied) decision of the Commission of 17 October 2018 rejecting, under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, (1) the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents relating to the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks; (2)

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 8 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001 by failing to decide within the prescribed time limit.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

         (2)  OJ 1997 L 152, p. 15.


title: Case T-747/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

      Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)
      (Case T-747/18)
      (2019/C 72/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a flower) — Application for registration No 16 544 025

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2018 in Case R 2518/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-748/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/37

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools)
      (Case T-748/18)
      (2019/C 72/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Glimarpol sp. z o.o. (Bytom, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Design at issue: European Union design 2 125 435-0001

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2018 in Case R 1615/2017-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision by stating that there are no grounds for declaring Registered Community design No 002125435-001 as invalid;

                  —

                  award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Case T-752/18: Action brought on 24 December 2018 — Tecnodidattica SpA v EUIPO (Base for lamps)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/38

      Action brought on 24 December 2018 — Tecnodidattica SpA v EUIPO (Base for lamps)
      (Case T-752/18)
      (2019/C 72/48)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Tecnodidattica SpA (San Colombano Certenoli, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and F. Corona, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a base for lamps) — Application for registration No 14 997 308

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2018 in Case R 76/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea(s) in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-757/18: Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/38

      Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
      (Case T-757/18)
      (2019/C 72/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s contested decision of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009)

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two alternative pleas in law to support that the contested decision infringed its procedural rights and therefore should be annulled.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was in any case obliged to reopen the formal investigation procedure by virtue of judgment T-425/11. In fact, the applicant claims that the Commission was, in principle, obliged to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments before the adoption of the contested decision.


title: Case T-761/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/39

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)
      (Case T-761/18)
      (2019/C 72/50)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre, D. Liern Cendrero, D. Gabarre Armengol and J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imagic Vision, SL (Madrid, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark imagin bank — Application for registration No 14 861 108

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 1954/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Rule that the present action against the contested decision is admissible;

                  —

                  Find that Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in that decision;

                  —

                  Grant protection in respect of all goods and services sought in the application for registration of European Union figurative trade mark No 14 861 108, ‘imagin bank’, in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant.

         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-3/19: Action brought on 3 January 2019 — Thai World Import & Export v EUIPO — Elvir (Yaco)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/40

      Action brought on 3 January 2019 — Thai World Import & Export v EUIPO — Elvir (Yaco)
      (Case T-3/19)
      (2019/C 72/51)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Thai World Import & Export Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elvir (Conde sur Vire, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Yaco’ — Application for registration No 14 980 148

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 319/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-4/19: Action brought on 2 January 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/41

      Action brought on 2 January 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)
      (Case T-4/19)
      (2019/C 72/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hankintatukku Arno Latvus Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triaz Group GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VIVANIA — European Union trade mark No 11 637 121

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2018 in Case R 767/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the request for declaration of invalidity of European Union trade mark No 11 637 121 ‘VIVANIA’;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the applicant’s costs in the present procedure.

         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-7/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/41

      Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-7/19)
      (2019/C 72/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA.51981 (2018/FC);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State guarantees granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised by the Construction Decision and that they do not constitute state aid.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the aid in the form of a DKK 10 million capital injection (in excess of the DKK 500 million authorised by the Planning Decision) is compatible with the internal market.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans granted in excess of the DKK 1 445 million budget, have been authorised in the Planning Decision and that they constitute State aid that is compatible with the internal market.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the tax advantages do not constitute State aid.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case T-8/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/42

      Action brought on 8 January 2019 — Repsol v EUIPO (INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO)
      (Case T-8/19)
      (2019/C 72/54)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J. C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘INVENTEMOS EL FUTURO’ — Application for registration No 17 258 807

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 in Case R 1173/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

      Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-9/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/43

      Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB
      (Case T-9/19)
      (2019/C 72/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn, QC and H. Leith, barrister)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the refusal of the EIB to conduct an internal review pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging errors in law in the application of the Aarhus Regulation, with regard to the status of ClientEarth as a non-governmental organisation, the concept of ‘administrative act’, the definition of measures of individual scope, the legal effects of the EIB Board of Directors’ decision, as well as the limits of ‘environmental law’.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging failure of the defendant to provide adequate reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.


title: Case T-11/19: Action brought on 2 January 2019 — Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Others v ECB and SRB

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/43

      Action brought on 2 January 2019 — Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Others v ECB and SRB
      (Case T-11/19)
      (2019/C 72/56)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicants: Mutualidad de la Abogacía (Madrid, Spain) and 75 other applicants (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez, A. Munoz Aranguren and P. Hermida Paredes, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Establish the non-contractual liability of the ECB and the SRB as a consequence of the failures specified in the application, and order the defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of the harm suffered, estimated at the financial value of their shares which, according to the SRB’s own ‘Evaluation 1’, amounted to EUR 2,0020217 per share; and, in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0,8442 per share.

                  —

                  Increase the compensation awarded by compensatory interest calculated at the annual rate of inflation declared by EUROSTAT in Spain, from 6 June 2017 up to the date of judgment, plus default interest (rate set by the ECB for its primary refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points), from the date of judgment awarding compensation for the harm suffered until due payment.

                  —

                  Order the defendant institutions to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a combination of illicit or negligent actions or omissions on the part of the European Central Bank. In that connection, the applicants claim:

                              —

                              Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, on account of the ECB, as the institution responsible for conducting the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), having created legitimate expectations on the part of the shareholders of Banco Popular Español.

                              —

                              Breach of the obligation of diligence and good administration on the part of the ECB, having failed to adopt the appropriate early intervention and/or recovery measures in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., with a failure to fulfil obligations under the Guidelines on early intervention triggers (Article 27(4) of Directive 2014/59).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a combination of illicit or negligent actions on the part of the Single Resolution Board. In that connection, the applicants claim:

                              —

                              Infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2014/59, on account of the SRB’s uncoordinated actions with the ECB, as well as the failure to update the Resolution Plan for Banco Popular Español.

                              —

                              Breach of the duty of confidentiality on the part of the SRB, with the related infringement of Article 339 TFEU and Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 806/2014.

                              —

                              Infringement of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014, on account of the SRB’s refusal to undertake a final valuation of Banco Popular Español, and the related breach of the obligation of diligence and good administration.


title: Case T-12/19: Action brought on 7 January 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/45

      Action brought on 7 January 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)
      (Case T-12/19)
      (2019/C 72/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, 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 APE TEES — Application for registration No 14 319 578

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2018 in Case R 2474/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

                  —

                  alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

                  —

                  order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the appeal and opposition proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-16/19: Action brought on 10 January 2019 — Activos e Inversiones Monterroso v SRB

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/45

      Action brought on 10 January 2019 — Activos e Inversiones Monterroso v SRB
      (Case T-16/19)
      (2019/C 72/58)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Activos e Inversiones Monterroso, SL (Pantoja, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:
      Take note of the present action for annulment of the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board of 31 October 2018, in the framework of this procedure [Ares (2017) 61995390] and, the appropriate legal steps having been taken, give judgment annulling the decision of 31 October 2018 and upholding the form of order sought, granting access to all documents included in the relevant administrative file.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1)

                  —

                  In that connection, the applicant argues that, in the present case, protection of the public interest as regards the economic or monetary policy of the European Union or a Member State, protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, protection of the purpose of investigations, or the opposition of the originator of the information, are not applicable as exceptions to the disclosure of documents.

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-18/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Brown v Commission

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/46

      Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Brown v Commission
      (Case T-18/19)
      (2019/C 72/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Colin M. Brown (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Damme, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant ceased to be entitled to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance;

                  —

                  order that the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance be restored with effect from 1 December 2017;

                  —

                  order that the allowances which were not paid between 1 December 2017 and the date of re-establishment of the applicant’s entitlement be paid to the applicant with interest;

                  —

                  annul, if it accepts the plea of illegality, the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to the Applicant until such time as the Institutions replace it with non-discriminatory provisions;

                  —

                  order the Commission 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 an incorrect interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations because the Commission was wrong to interpret that provision as meaning that a right to an expatriation allowance, acquired based on the place of origin and center of interests of an official in another Member State prior to his recruitment, is to be re-assessed in case the official concerned subsequently acquires the nationality of the Member State where he remains employed.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 19 March 2018 discriminates against the applicant by subjecting his entitlement to the expropriation allowance to the conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that, should the General Court find that the Commission was correct to determine the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the Commission nevertheless failed to interpret that provision in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that, if all of three other pleas are rejected, Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is illegal and inapplicable in the sense that, and in so far as, it produces unjustified discrimination as regards persons in the situation of the applicant, for the reasons advanced in support of the second plea.


title: Case T-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/47

      Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
      (Case T-27/19)
      (2019/C 72/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank;

                  —

                  order the Defendant to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1)

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively.

                  5.

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

                  6.

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

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard.

                  11.

                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.

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


title: Case T-595/18: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

text:
               25.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/48

      Order of the President of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
      (Case T-595/18) (1)

      (2019/C 72/61)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.


title: Case T-706/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — UP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Serious illness — Application f for part-time work on medical grounds — Rejection of the application — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of disability — Right to be heard — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Liability)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — UP v Commission
      (Case T-706/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Serious illness - Application f for part-time work on medical grounds - Rejection of the application - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of disability - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Liability))
      (2019/C 82/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: UP (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission Decision of 26 April 2017 refusing to grant the applicant part-time work on medical grounds and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders UP to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case C-661/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Discretionary clauses — Assessment criteria)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/16

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland
      (Case C-661/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Discretionary clauses - Assessment criteria))
      (2019/C 93/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: M.A., S.A., A.Z.

         Defendants: International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a Member State, designated as ‘responsible’ within the meaning of that regulation, has notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU does not oblige the determining Member State to itself examine, under the discretionary clause set out in Article 17(1), the application for protection at issue.

                  2.

                  Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the determination of the Member State responsible under the criteria defined by that regulation and the exercise of the discretionary clause set out in Article 17(1) of that regulation to be undertaken by the same national authority.

                  3.

                  Article 6(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a Member State which is not responsible, under the criteria set out by that regulation, for examining an application for international protection to take into account the best interests of the child and to itself examine that application, under Article 17(1) of that regulation.

                  4.

                  Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a remedy to be made available against the decision not to use the option set out in Article 17(1) of that regulation, without prejudice to the fact that that decision may be challenged at the time of an appeal against a transfer decision.

                  5.

                  Article 20(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that provision establishes a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to treat that child’s situation as indissociable from that of its parents.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-333/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark marry me — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)
      (Case T-333/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark marry me - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 103/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 807/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign marry me as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-179/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent — Belgium) — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Pension rights under the national pension scheme for employed persons — Refusal to take into account the period of compulsory military service completed by an official of the European Union after taking up his post — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/14

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent — Belgium) — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst
      (Case C-179/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Pension rights under the national pension scheme for employed persons - Refusal to take into account the period of compulsory military service completed by an official of the European Union after taking up his post - Principle of sincere cooperation)
      (2019/C 131/17)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ronny Rohart

         Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when determining the pension entitlement of a worker who occupied a position as an employed person in that Member State before becoming an EU official and completed, after becoming an EU official, his compulsory military service in that Member State, that worker is not entitled to have his period of military service treated as equivalent to a period of actual work as an employed person — treatment to which he would have been entitled if, at the time he was called up for military service or for at least one year during the three years following the end of his military service, he had been employed in a position covered by the national pension scheme.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-763/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2018 by Wallapop, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-186/17, Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/20

      Appeal brought on 5 December 2018 by Wallapop, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2018 in Case T-186/17, Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)
      (Case C-763/18 P)
      (2019/C 131/25)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Wallapop, S.L. (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and N. Porxas Roig, lawyers)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Unipreus, S.L.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal, for the reasons set out in the single ground of appeal, finding that the services at issue are not similar;

                  —

                  order Unipreus to pay the costs incurred by Wallapop, both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      Wallapop, S.L. is bringing an appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2018, delivered in Case T-186/17, (1) relating to opposition proceedings brought by the company Unipreus, S.L. in respect of Wallapop, S.L.‘s application for EU figurative mark No 13268941.
      The appeal is based on a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (2) (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark) and the case-law that interprets the assessment of similarity between services.
      In particular, the ground of appeal is based on the General Court’s erroneous application of the criteria established in the case-law for determining the similarity in terms of application as between trade marks; in essence, the General Court disregarded the concept of marketing and the services that an online market ordinarily provides, according to the meaning attributed to it by legislation and case-law; that is to say, intermediary services rather than marketing or similar services.
      The General Court’s incorrect assessment carries forward to the analysis in its judgment of the similarity of the services at issue, applying the criteria established in the case-law to that effect (such as nature, distribution channels, intended purpose and perception or competitiveness and complementarity between services).

         (1)  Judgment of 3 October 2018, Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop) (T-186/17, not published, EU:T:2018:640).

         (2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-835/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 24 December 2018 — SC Terracult SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5 and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Serviciul de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 24 December 2018 — SC Terracult SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5 and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Serviciul de Soluționare a Contestațiilor
      (Case C-835/18)
      (2019/C 131/27)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Timișoara

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: SC Terracult SRL

         Respondents: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecție Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5 and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Timișoara — Serviciul de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

         Question referred

      Do the VAT Directive (1) and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an administrative practice and/or an interpretation of provisions of national legislation which prevents the correction of certain invoices and, consequently, the entry of the corrected invoices in the VAT return for the period in which the correction was made, in respect of transactions carried out during a period which was the subject of a tax inspection, following which the tax authorities issued a tax assessment which has become final, when, after the issue of the tax assessment, additional data and information have been discovered which would entail the application of a different tax regime?

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-118/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 6(1) — Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency — Exchange difference — Substitution of a legislative provision for an unfair term declared void — Exchange rate risk — Continued existence of the contract after the unfair term has been deleted — National system for a uniform interpretation of law)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/2

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt
      (Case C-118/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 6(1) - Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency - Exchange difference - Substitution of a legislative provision for an unfair term declared void - Exchange rate risk - Continued existence of the contract after the unfair term has been deleted - National system for a uniform interpretation of law)
      (2019/C 155/02)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Zsuzsanna Dunai

         Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court seised of the case from granting an application for the cancellation of a loan contract on the basis of the unfair nature of a term relating to the exchange difference, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that a finding that terms in such an agreement were unfair would restore the legal and factual situation that the consumer would have been in had that unfair term not existed; and

                              —

                              it precludes national legislation which prevents, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the court seised of the case from granting an application for the cancellation of a loan contract on the basis of the unfair nature of a term relating to exchange rate risk where it is found that that term is unfair and that the contract cannot continue to exist without that term.

                  2.

                  Directive 93/13, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does not preclude a supreme court of a Member State from adopting, in the interest of ensuring uniform interpretation of the law, binding decisions concerning the modalities for implementing that directive, in so far as those decisions do not prevent the competent court from ensuring the full effect of the norms laid down in that directive and from offering consumers an effective remedy for the protection of the rights that they can derive therefrom, or from referring a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court in that regard, which it is for the referring court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-128/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive (EU) 2016/2284 — Reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants — Adoption of EU legal acts — Functioning of the legislative procedure — Article 4(3) TEU — Principle of cooperation in good faith — Actual exercise of the EU legislature’s powers of discretion — Impact assessment — Sufficient assessment of the effects of the contested act — Article 5(4) TEU — Principle of proportionality — Article 4(2) TEU — Equality of Member States before the Treaties — Article 191(2) TFEU — EU policy on the environment — Account taken of the diversity of the EU regions — Judicial review)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/3

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
      (Case C-128/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2016/2284 - Reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants - Adoption of EU legal acts - Functioning of the legislative procedure - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of cooperation in good faith - Actual exercise of the EU legislature’s powers of discretion - Impact assessment - Sufficient assessment of the effects of the contested act - Article 5(4) TEU - Principle of proportionality - Article 4(2) TEU - Equality of Member States before the Treaties - Article 191(2) TFEU - EU policy on the environment - Account taken of the diversity of the EU regions - Judicial review)
      (2019/C 155/03)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, A.-Z. Varfi, K. Adamczyk Delamarre and A. Sikora-Kalėda, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and E. Tóth, Agents), Romania (represented by: C. Canțăr, R.H. Radu, A. Wellman and M. Chicu, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen, K. Herrmann and G. Gattinara, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders Hungary, Romania and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case C-221/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Article 20 TFUE — Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Nationalities of a Member State and of a third country — Loss of the nationality of a Member State and of citizenship of the Union by operation of law — Consequences — Proportionality)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
      (Case C-221/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 20 TFUE - Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Nationalities of a Member State and of a third country - Loss of the nationality of a Member State and of citizenship of the Union by operation of law - Consequences - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 155/04)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: M.G. Tjebbes, G.J.M. Koopman, E. Saleh Abady, L. Duboux

         Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides under certain conditions for the loss, by operation of law, of the nationality of that Member State, which entails, in the case of persons who are not also nationals of another Member State, the loss of their citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, in so far as the competent national authorities, including national courts where appropriate, are in a position to examine, as an ancillary issue, the consequences of the loss of that nationality and, where appropriate, to have the persons concerned recover their nationality ex tunc in the context of an application by those persons for a travel document or any other document showing their nationality. In the context of that examination, the authorities and the courts must determine whether the loss of the nationality of the Member State concerned, when it entails the loss of citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, has due regard to the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences of that loss for the situation of each person concerned and, if relevant, for that of the members of their family, from the point of view of EU law.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-399/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Shipment of waste — Refusal of the Czech Republic to ensure the take-back of the mixture TPS-NOLO (Geobal) shipped from that Member State to Poland — Existence of waste — Burden of proof — Proof)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/5

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — European Commission v Czech Republic
      (Case C-399/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Shipment of waste - Refusal of the Czech Republic to ensure the take-back of the mixture TPS-NOLO (Geobal) shipped from that Member State to Poland - Existence of waste - Burden of proof - Proof)
      (2019/C 155/05)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Sanfrutos Cano and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and L. Dvořáková, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-428/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — Meta Group Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements — Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant — Contractual liability)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/5

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 — Meta Group Srl v European Commission
      (Case C-428/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - Amounts allegedly owed by the European Commission in relation to the performance of those agreements - Outstanding balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the appellant - Contractual liability)
      (2019/C 155/06)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-437/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality — Right to paid annual leave based on the seniority of the worker with the employer — Account taken only in part of previous periods of service completed with other employers — Social law — Disparity between the schemes and legislation of the Member States)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH v EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH
      (Case C-437/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Right to paid annual leave based on the seniority of the worker with the employer - Account taken only in part of previous periods of service completed with other employers - Social law - Disparity between the schemes and legislation of the Member States)
      (2019/C 155/07)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

         Defendant: EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for the purposes of determining whether a worker with 25 years of professional experience is entitled to an increase in his paid annual leave from five to six weeks, the years of service completed with one or more employers prior to the start of the worker’s period of service with his current employer account for only a maximum of five years of professional experience, even if their actual number is more than five.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-449/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(i) and (j) — Exemption for certain activities in the public interest — School or university education — Concept — Driving school tuition provided by a driving school)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH v Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel
      (Case C-449/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(i) and (j) - Exemption for certain activities in the public interest - School or university education - Concept - Driving school tuition provided by a driving school)
      (2019/C 155/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: A & G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH

         Defendant: Finanzamt Wolfenbüttel

         Operative part of the judgment

      The concept of ‘school or university education’, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(i) and (j) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as not covering motor vehicle driving tuition provided by a driving school, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for the purpose of acquiring driving licences for vehicles in categories B and C1 referred to in Article 4(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.

         (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.


title: Case C-557/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 16(2)(a) — Article 17 — Withdrawal of the residence permit of a member of the family of a third-country national — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 9(1)(a) — Loss of that status — Fraud — Lack of knowledge of the fraud)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y.
      (Case C-557/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 16(2)(a) - Article 17 - Withdrawal of the residence permit of a member of the family of a third-country national - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 9(1)(a) - Loss of that status - Fraud - Lack of knowledge of the fraud)
      (2019/C 155/09)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Defendants: Y.Z., Z.Z., Y.Y.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 16(2)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that, where falsified documents were produced for the issuing of residence permits to family members of a third-country national, the fact that those family members did not know of the fraudulent nature of those documents does not preclude the Member State concerned, in application of that provision, from withdrawing those permits. In accordance with Article 17 of that directive, it is however for the competent national authorities to carry out, beforehand, a case-by-case assessment of the situation of those family members, by making a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the interests in play.

                  2.

                  Article 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, must be interpreted as meaning that, where long-term resident status has been granted to third-country nationals on the basis of falsified documents, the fact that those nationals did not know of the fraudulent nature of those documents does not preclude the Member State concerned, in application of that provision, from withdrawing that status.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-635/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Exclusions from the scope of the directive — Article 3(2)(c) — Exclusion of persons benefiting from subsidiary protection — Extension of the right to family reunification to those persons under national law — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 11(2) — Lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship — Explanations regarded as insufficiently plausible — Obligations on the authorities of the Member States to take additional steps — Limits)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-635/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Exclusions from the scope of the directive - Article 3(2)(c) - Exclusion of persons benefiting from subsidiary protection - Extension of the right to family reunification to those persons under national law - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 11(2) - Lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship - Explanations regarded as insufficiently plausible - Obligations on the authorities of the Member States to take additional steps - Limits)
      (2019/C 155/10)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: E.

         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law.

                  2.

                  Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case C-647/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 53 — Supply of services in respect of admission to educational events — Place of taxable transactions)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB
      (Case C-647/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 53 - Supply of services in respect of admission to educational events - Place of taxable transactions)
      (2019/C 155/11)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Skatteverket

         Defendant: Srf konsulterna AB

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 53 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘services in respect of admission to events’ in that provision includes a service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the form of a five-day course on accountancy and management which is supplied solely to taxable persons and requires advance registration and payment.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-666/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — AlzChem AG v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — General presumption of confidentiality of documents relating to an investigation procedure in the field of State aid — Scope)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2019 — AlzChem AG v European Commission
      (Case C-666/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - General presumption of confidentiality of documents relating to an investigation procedure in the field of State aid - Scope)
      (2019/C 155/12)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, and J.A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders AlzChem AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-695/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/24/EU — Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures — Article 13(1) — Article 14(2) — Enforced recovery, by the authorities of the requested Member State, of claims of the applicant Member State — Procedure relating to an application seeking the restitution of those claims to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State — Defendant in those proceedings — Determination)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet
      (Case C-695/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Article 13(1) - Article 14(2) - Enforced recovery, by the authorities of the requested Member State, of claims of the applicant Member State - Procedure relating to an application seeking the restitution of those claims to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State - Defendant in those proceedings - Determination)
      (2019/C 155/13)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Helsingin käräjäoikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Metirato Oy, in liquidation

         Defendants: Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 13(1) and Article 14(2) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that, first, they apply to proceedings seeking restitution, to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State, of claims which were recovered at the request of the applicant Member State, if those proceedings are based on disputes concerning the enforcement measures, within the meaning of Article 14(2) and, second, the requested Member State, within the meaning of those provisions, must be regarded as the defendant in those proceedings, the fact that the amount represented by those claims has been separated from the assets of that Member State or merged with them being irrelevant in that regard.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-724/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Compensation for the damage caused by a cartel prohibited by that article — Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation — Succession of legal entities — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic continuity test)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Vantaan kaupunki v Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy
      (Case C-724/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Compensation for the damage caused by a cartel prohibited by that article - Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation - Succession of legal entities - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic continuity test)
      (2019/C 155/14)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Vantaan kaupunki

         Respondents: Skanska Industrial Solutions Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Asfaltmix Oy

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which all the shares in the companies which participated in a cartel prohibited by that article were acquired by other companies which have dissolved the former companies and continued their commercial activities, the acquiring companies may be held liable for the damage caused by the cartel in question.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-21/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Concept of ‘shape’ — Shape giving substantial value to the goods — Two-dimensional mark — Figurative mark also constituting a work for the purpose of copyright — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(e)(iii) — Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/12

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin v Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag
      (Case C-21/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Concept of ‘shape’ - Shape giving substantial value to the goods - Two-dimensional mark - Figurative mark also constituting a work for the purpose of copyright - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424)
      (2019/C 155/15)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Svea hovrätt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Textilis Ltd, Ozgur Keskin

         Defendant: Svenskt Tenn Aktiebolag

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to marks registered before the entry into force of Regulation No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation 2015/2424.

                  2.

                  Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a sign such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of two-dimensional decorative motifs, which are affixed to goods, such as fabric or paper, does not ‘consist exclusively of the shape’, within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case C-134/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security systems — Invalidity benefits — Articles 45 and 48 TFEU — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Different benefit schemes in the Member States — ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ — Duration — Benefits for incapacity for work — Disadvantages for migrant workers)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/13

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) — Maria Vester v Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering
      (Case C-134/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security systems - Invalidity benefits - Articles 45 and 48 TFEU - Freedom of movement for workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Different benefit schemes in the Member States - ‘Primary period of incapacity to work’ - Duration - Benefits for incapacity for work - Disadvantages for migrant workers)
      (2019/C 155/16)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Maria Vester

         Defendant: Rijksinstituut voor ziekte- en invaliditeitsverzekering

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 45 and 48 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a worker who is unfit to work for one year and who has been granted invalidity status by the competent institution of the Member State of his residence, without being entitled to receive invalidity benefits on the basis of the law of that Member State, is required by the competent institution of the Member State in which he completed all his insurance periods to complete an additional one-year period of incapacity to work in order to be granted invalidity status and receive pro-rata invalidity benefits, without receiving any benefits for incapacity to work during that period.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-174/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Income tax — Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation — Pension received in a Member State other than that of residence — Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence — Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge
      (Case C-174/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Pension received in a Member State other than that of residence - Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence - Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)
      (2019/C 155/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

         Defendant: État belge

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect of depriving a couple resident in that State, one of whom receives a pension in another Member State which is exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation, of part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by the Member State of residence.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case C-195/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against B. S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 2 — Definition of ‘beer’ — Beverage produced from wort obtained from a mixture containing more glucose than malt — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 2203 (beer made from malt) or 2206 (other fermented beverages))

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against B. S.
      (Case C-195/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 2 - Definition of ‘beer’ - Beverage produced from wort obtained from a mixture containing more glucose than malt - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 2203 (beer made from malt) or 2206 (other fermented beverages))
      (2019/C 155/18)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

         Party to the main proceedings

      B. S.

         Other parties: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim, Łódzki Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Łodzi, Urząd Celno-Skarbowy w Piotrkowie Trybunalskim

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that an intermediate product intended to be mixed with non-alcoholic beverages, obtained from a wort containing less malt ingredients than non-malt ingredients and to which glucose syrup is added before the fermentation process, may be classified as ‘beer made from malt’ within heading 2203 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff in the version of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, provided that the organoleptic characteristics of the product correspond to those of beer, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case C-372/18: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy — France) — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3 — Matters covered — Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme — Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security — Definition of ‘social security benefit’ — Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs — Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

      Judgment of the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy — France) — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer
      (Case C-372/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Levies on income from assets charged to a French resident insured under the Swiss social security scheme - Levies apportioned for the funding of two benefits administered by the French National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security - Definition of ‘social security benefit’ - Individual assessment of an applicant’s personal needs - Taking into account the applicant’s resources in calculating the amount of the benefits)
      (2019/C 155/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

         Respondents: Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that benefits, such as the personal independence allowance and the disability compensation allowance, must, for the purposes of their classification as ‘social security contributions’ within the meaning of that provision, be regarded as granted without any individual assessment of a recipient’s personal needs, since the recipient’s resources are taken into account for the sole purpose of calculating the actual amount of those benefits on the basis of legally defined, objective criteria.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-277/18: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa — Portugal) — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/24

      Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo de Círculo de Lisboa — Portugal) — Henkel Ibérica Portugal, Unipessoal Lda v Comissão de Segurança de Serviços e Bens de Consumo
      (Case C-277/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/31)
      Language of the case: Portuguese
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case T-161/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/37

      Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-161/19)
      (2019/C 172/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Telekom (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

                  —

                  annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

                  —

                  order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).


title: Case T-125/19: Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/54

      Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)
      (Case T-125/19)
      (2019/C 148/52)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Clem & Jo Optique SARL (Cormicy, France) (represented by: N. Hausmann, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark C&J — Application for registration No 15 912 041

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 in Case R 1252/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  The applicant company argues that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks C&A and C&J.