title: Case C-385/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) made on 16 May 2019 — Ms R.A.T., Mr D.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/25

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) made on 16 May 2019 — Ms R.A.T., Mr D.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality
      (Case C-385/19)
      (2019/C 255/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      International Protection Appeals Tribunal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Ms R.A.T. and Mr D.S.

         Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  Are there separate categories of ‘Applicant’ envisaged in Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU (1)?

                  2)

                  What type of conduct will amount to delay attributable to the applicant within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Directive 2013/33/EU?

         (1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 96).


title: Case C-400/19: Action brought on 23 May 2019 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/25

      Action brought on 23 May 2019 — European Commission v Hungary
      (Case C-400/19)
      (2019/C 255/34)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos, A. Lewis and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hungary

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare that, by restricting the fixing of sale prices of agricultural and food products, having particular regard to Article 3(2)(u) of the a mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló, 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices by suppliers in respect of agricultural and food products), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products; (1)

                  —

                  Order Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Law XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices by suppliers in respect of agricultural and food products (‘the Tfmtv’) introduced sector-specific provisions in relation to the fixing of the retail prices of the products in question.
      The Commission submits that Article 3(2)(u) of the Tfmtv does not refer to the characteristics of agricultural and food products, but solely to their selling arrangements, and must therefore be regarded as a provision relating to sales arrangements within the meaning of the Keck and Mithouard judgment (see judgment of 24 November 1993, Keck and Mithouard, Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, EU:C:1993:905). In analysing the effects of that measure, it can be said to be a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.
      According to the Commission, Article 3(2)(u) of the Tfmtv does not in fact affect the sale of domestic and imported products in equal measure, and is neither an adequate nor proportionate measure with regard to any legitimate aim connected to it.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).


title: Case C-402/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2019 — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2019 — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing
      (Case C-402/19)
      (2019/C 255/35)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour du travail de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: LM

         Respondent: Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

         Questions referred

      Does point 1 of the first subparagraph of Article 57(2) of the Organic Law of 8 July 1976 on public social welfare centres infringe Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC, (1) read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive and Articles 7 and [21] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Abdida judgment of 18 December 2014 (Case C-562/13):

                  —

                  first, in so far as it results in depriving a third-country national, staying illegally on the territory of a Member State, of provision, in so far as possible, for his basic needs pending resolution of the action for suspension and annulment that he has brought in his own name as the representative of his child, who was at that time a minor, against a decision ordering them to leave the territory of a Member State;

                  —

                  where, second, on the one hand, that child who has now come of age suffers from a serious illness and the enforcement of that decision may expose that child to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in her state of health and, on the other, the presence of that parent alongside his daughter who has now come of age is considered to be imperative by the medical professional given that she is particularly vulnerable as a result of her state of health (recurrent sickle cell crises and the need for surgery in order to prevent paralysis)?

         (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case C-410/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 27 May 2019 — The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/27

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 27 May 2019 — The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd
      (Case C-410/19)
      (2019/C 255/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: The Software Incubator Ltd

         Defendant: Computer Associates (UK) Ltd

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Where a copy of computer software is supplied to a principal’s customers electronically, and not on any tangible medium, does it constitute ‘goods’ within the meaning of that term as it appears in the definition of a commercial agent in Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of December 1986 on the co-ordination of the laws of member states relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) (‘Directive’)?

                  2.

                  Where computer software is supplied to a principal’s customers by way of the grant to the customer of a perpetual licence to use a copy of the computer software, does that constitute a ‘sale of goods’ within the meaning of that term as it appears in the definition of commercial agent in Article 1(2) of the Directive?

         (1)  OJ 1986, L 382, p. 17


title: Case C-440/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Pometon SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on 28 March 2019 in Case T-433/16, Pometon v Commission

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/28

      Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Pometon SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on 28 March 2019 in Case T-433/16, Pometon v Commission
      (Case C-440/19 P)
      (2019/C 255/37)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Pometon SpA (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
      principally, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejected the pleas in law seeking annulment of the contested decision in its entirety and, consequently, annul the contested decision;
      in the alternative:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court unfairly found that Pometon’s alleged participation in the alleged cartel had not been interrupted during the period from 18 November 2005 to 20 March 2007 and, accordingly, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the financial penalty imposed on Pometon;

                  —

                  in any event, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the financial penalty imposed on Pometon on account of the General Court having failed to observe the principle of equal treatment;

            in any event, order the Commission to pay the appellant’s legal fees and any other costs and charges connected with the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

                  1.

                     First ground of appeal: The General Court misapplied fundamental principles of EU law, namely the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of a fair trial, by failing to criticise the Commission’s failure to observe those fundamental principles.

                  2.

                     Second ground of appeal: The General Court failed to observe the principles governing the burden of proof and failed to apply the principle of the presumption of innocence when it confirmed the Commission’s findings that Pometon had taken part in the alleged cartel. It also gave contradictory and/or insufficient reasoning in that regard.
                  The General Court found the appellant culpable on the basis of assumptions and ‘likelihoods’, indicating in quite generic terms the documents on which those assumptions were based.

                  3.

                     Third ground of appeal: The General Court misapplied the principles governing the burden of proof and failed to apply the principle of the presumption of innocence when it held that the Commission had demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that Pometon had not interrupted its participation in the infringement during the (approximately) 16-month period from 18 November 2005 to 20 March 2007, even though, for that period, it did not have evidence of collusive contact. It also gave contradictory and/or insufficient reasoning in that regard.

                  4.

                     Fourth ground of appeal: The General Court failed to observe the principle of equal treatment when setting the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon and provided contradictory and/or insufficient reasoning in that regard. In particular, the General Court recalculated the amount of the penalty imposed on the appellant by identifying a percentage reduction of the basic amount of the fine that was not consistent with the percentage reductions granted by the Commission to the settling parties, and did not provide objective justification for such treatment.


title: Case T-433/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bank Saderat v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Bank Saderat v Council
      (Case T-433/15) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
      (2019/C 255/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley, A. Irvine, Solicitors, M. Demetriou QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bishop and N. Rouam, and subsequently M. Bishop and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Konstantinidis and D. Gauci, and subsequently M. Konstantinidis, A. Tizzano and C. Zadra, Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of its name on the list of designated persons and entities in Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Bank Saderat plc to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs

         (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-399/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Dalli v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Investigation by OLAF — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Dalli v Commission
      (Case T-399/17) (1)

      (Non-contractual liability - Investigation by OLAF - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Non-material damage - Causal link)
      (2019/C 255/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the illegal conduct of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), connected with the termination of his office as a Member of the Commission on 16 October 2012.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr John Dalli to bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-539/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria
      (Case T-539/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 255/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405, plus default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 404 792,06, 954 331,07 pounds sterling (GBP), 29 130 433,00 Japanese yen (JPY) and 1 498 184,58 US dollars (USD).

                  2.

                     Declares that those sums are to bear default interest at an annual rate of 4.52% on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made.

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-540/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
      (Case T-540/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 255/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948, plus default interest

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 52 657 141,77;

                  2.

                     Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, calculated in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Electricity Distribution Project loan agreement No 20948, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 5 February 2001 and amended by the letters of 3 October 2003, 28 February 2006, 9 May and 8 October 2007, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-541/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
      (Case T-541/17) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
      (2019/C 255/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868, plus default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 38 934 400,51 and 3 383 971,66 Swiss francs (CHF);

                  2.

                     Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Electricity Transmission Project loan agreement No 20868, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 December 2000 and amended on 20 December 2004, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-61/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Bonnafous v EACEA (Civil service — Contract staff — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Normal probationary conditions — Psychological harassment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Liability)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Bonnafous v EACEA
      (Case T-61/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Contract staff - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Normal probationary conditions - Psychological harassment - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Liability)
      (2019/C 255/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (represented by H. Monet and V. Kasparian, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the dismissal decision of 14 November 2016 and of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 June 2017, taken by the EACEA, and second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Ms Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-616/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Siragusa v Council (Civil service — Officials — Leaving the service — Request to retire — Amendment of the Staff Regulations after that request had been made — Withdrawal of an earlier decision — Liability)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Siragusa v Council
      (Case T-616/17 RENV) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Leaving the service - Request to retire - Amendment of the Staff Regulations after that request had been made - Withdrawal of an earlier decision - Liability)
      (2019/C 255/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, M. Bauer and M. Veiga, then M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, M. Rantala and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, then I. Lázaro Bentacor and C. González Argüelles, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the Council’s decision of 12 November 2014 withdrawing the Council’s earlier decision approving the applicant’s request of 11 July 2013 for early retirement and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 November 2014 withdrawing the Council’s earlier decision approving Mr Sergio Siragusa’s request of 11 July 2013 for early retirement;

                  2.

                     Orders the Council to pay Mr Siragusa the sum of EUR 5 000, together with default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment is delivered and until full payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the claim for damages as to the remainder

                  4.

                     Declares that the Council is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr Siragusa, including those relating to Case F-124/15 and Case T-678/16 P;

                  5.

                     Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs, including those relating to Case F-124/15 and Case T-678/16 P.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-124/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-43/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (VW Bus T 5 vehicle) (Community designs — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing the VW Bus T 5 vehicle — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (VW Bus T 5 vehicle)
      (Case T-43/18) (1)

      (Community designs - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing the VW Bus T 5 vehicle - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
      (2019/C 255/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 (Case R 1204/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rietze and Volkswagen.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Rietze GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-191/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicle VW Caddy Maxi) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing the motor vehicle VW Caddy Maxi — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity — Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicle VW Caddy Maxi)
      (Case T-191/18) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing the motor vehicle VW Caddy Maxi - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity - Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design)
      (2019/C 255/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 (Case R 1203/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rietze and Volkswagen.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     orders Rietze GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case T-192/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicle VW Caddy) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing the motor vehicle VW Caddy — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity — Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicle VW Caddy)
      (Case T-192/18) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Registered Community design representing the motor vehicle VW Caddy - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Burden of proof on the applicant for a declaration of invalidity - Requirements relating to the reproduction of an earlier design)
      (2019/C 255/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 (Case R 1244/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rietze and Volkswagen.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     orders Rietze GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case T-209/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a motor vehicle — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Motor vehicles)
      (Case T-209/18) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a motor vehicle - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
      (2019/C 255/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 (Case R 945/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Autec AG and Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                     Orders Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case T-210/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a car — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Porsche v EUIPO — Autec (Cars)
      (Case T-210/18) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a car - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
      (2019/C 255/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2018 (Case R 941/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Autec AG and Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                     Orders Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case T-220/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (Battistino) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Battistino — Earlier EU word mark BATTISTA — Declaration of partial invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (Battistino)
      (Case T-220/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Battistino - Earlier EU word mark BATTISTA - Declaration of partial invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 255/50)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 (Case R 400/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Battista Nino Caffè and Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 January 2018 (Case R 400/2017-5);

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to bear the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-221/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (BATTISTINO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark BATTISTINO — Earlier EU word mark BATTISTA — Declaration of invalidity — Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista v EUIPO — Battista Nino Caffè (BATTISTINO)
      (Case T-221/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark BATTISTINO - Earlier EU word mark BATTISTA - Declaration of invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 255/51)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: V. Franchini, F. Paesan and R. Bia, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Battista Nino Caffè Srl (Triggiano, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2018 (Case R 402/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Battista Nino Caffè and Torrefazione Caffè Michele Battista.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 January 2018 (Case R 402/2017-5);

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders EUIPO and Battista Nino Caffè Srl to bear the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6. 2018.


title: Case T-229/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Biolatte v EUIPO (Biolatte) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Biolatte — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Biolatte v EUIPO (Biolatte)
      (Case T-229/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Biolatte - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 255/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Biolatte Oy (Turku, Finland) (represented by: J. Ikonen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2018 (Case R 351/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Biolatte as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Biolatte Oy to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-338/19: Action brought on 6 June 2019 — UE v Commission

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/50

      Action brought on 6 June 2019 — UE v Commission
      (Case T-338/19)
      (2019/C 263/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, avocats)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission decision dated 1 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request to recognise an occupational disease;

                  —

                  if needed, annul the Commission decision dated 5 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 5 November 2018;

                  —

                  order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of interpretation of the reasonableness of the period of time in which the occupational disease request has been lodged.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the misuse of power.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.


title: Case T-345/19: Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Santini v Parliament

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/51

      Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Santini v Parliament
      (Case T-345/19)
      (2019/C 263/59)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Giacomo Santini (Trento, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,

                  —

                  annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;

                  —

                  accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and

                  —

                  in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging encroachment on the powers reserved to the Bureau of the European Parliament.
                  The applicant claims that the recalculation of the European life annuity is unlawful inasmuch as it was carried out unilaterally, retroactively and permanently on the basis of an alleged (non-existent) automatic application of Resolution No 14/2018 of the [Office of the President of the] Italian Chamber of Deputies, in the absence of an earlier specific resolution of the Bureau of the European Parliament, to which all powers in such matters are reserved (under Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the internal rules of the European Parliament.
                  The applicant claims that the recalculation of the European life annuity is unlawful inasmuch as it contravenes Article 1 of Annex III to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament in force prior to 2009. When the MEP completed his term of office, his social security position was definitively dealt with under the conditions then in force for national Italian MPs. Any amendments to those conditions, introduced several years later, may not have a retroactive effect on a situation already defined and resolved by the European Parliament in accordance with the conditions in force at the time the right was acquired, since the Italian Chamber of Deputies no longer has any authority in the matter after that point.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 28 of the Statute for Members.
                  The applicant claims that the recalculation of the European life annuity is unlawful inasmuch as it contravenes Article 28 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 75 and 76 of the Implementing Measures for that statute, which establish that rights acquired prior to the entry into force of the new statute will be definitively maintained and will be honoured in accordance with the conditions laid down at the time. According to the applicant, it is not possible to derogate from those safeguard clauses, still less by a mere retroactive and permanent resolution of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, without infringing those clauses and the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned that their life annuity and the amount thereof will not be altered to their detriment, especially not retroactively and as the result of the application of a different, arbitrarily-introduced calculation system.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reductive measure is punitive and alleging infringement of the principles of legality, non-retroactivity and non-discrimination.
                  The applicant claims that the recalculation of the life annuity is unlawful inasmuch as (i) it is punitive and discriminates against a single class of persons (Italian former MEPs) and represents a purely symbolic political intervention devoid of any objective aim to save money and (ii) the recalculation of the life annuity carried out retroactively using different methods and having permanent effects entails an unjustified difference in treatment in comparison with former MEPs from other Member States, MEPs elected after 2009 and all other citizens in general, who are not subject to any such reductive treatment.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
                  According to the applicant, a life annuity is an economic disbursement which has become part of the individual assets of members of parliament who receive it or who have become eligible to receive it in the future. The sudden reduction in that annuity, especially where it is the result of a recalculation carried out retroactively using different validation criteria set unilaterally and arbitrarily by the Italian Chamber of Deputies, is tantamount to a tax on the individual assets of members of parliament which, as such, may only be provided for by a Law and which, in any event, should have been justified by a specific public interest which has not been invoked in the present case and in any event does not exist, given that that redetermination of life annuities will not give rise to any tangible savings.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the protection of acquired rights.
                  The applicant alleges unlawfulness on the grounds of manifest failure to observe the principles of regulatory certainty, certainty in legal relations, legitimate expectations and the protection of acquired rights. In his view, the recalculation of the life annuity has retroactive effect, imposing a different method for determining the annuity resulting in a significant definitive and permanent reduction (in the present case, 50 %) after the beneficiary has acquired the right to that annuity well before the adoption of the resolution at issue, thereby radically betraying the natural and legitimate expectation of recipients regarding the effectiveness and stability over time of the life annuity without providing any reasoning to justify such a radical and permanent effect on positions which have already been established and settled for some time.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of reasonableness, equal treatment, non-discrimination and solidarity.
                  The applicant claims that the intervention is unlawful inasmuch as it was adopted without any statement of the reasons therefor or the purposes thereof, exceeding the limits of exceptionality and consentaneity, and ultimately is manifestly at odds with the principles of substantive equality and reasonableness.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging further grounds of infringement of the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, equal treatment, non-discrimination and solidarity.
                  The applicant claims that the intervention in question is unlawful inasmuch as it is at odds with the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, solidarity and equal treatment, given that it: (i) retroactively imposes the contributory system on persons to whom the annuity was disbursed long before Resolution No 14/2018 of the [Office of the President of the] Italian Chamber of Deputies, if not well before the contributory system entered into force via the ‘Dini’ Reform (1996); (ii) alters the legal status of the contributions received from the former member of parliament, while remaining silent, however, on the subject of the fees deducted directly by the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] as a withholding tax; (iii) imposes the retroactive application of a contributory system which, however, is in no way contributory in terms of either its form or its aims; (iv) irrationally and incorrectly applies probabilistic conversion ratios and calculation criteria, referring to the already known past and not to the future; and (v) reveals a clear desire to treat life annuities in the same way as pension rights for public sector employees when these are in reality emoluments of a different nature.


title: Case C-387/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 May 2019 — RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel v Vlaams Gewest

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 May 2019 — RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel v Vlaams Gewest
      (Case C-387/19)
      (2019/C 270/21)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel

         Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as precluding an application whereby the economic operator is required to provide evidence on its own initiative of the measures that the economic operator has taken to demonstrate its reliability?

                  2.

                  If so, do the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24 therefore have direct effect?

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.


title: Case C-388/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) lodged on 17 May 2019 — MK v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) lodged on 17 May 2019 — MK v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
      (Case C-388/19)
      (2019/C 270/22)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: MK

         Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

         Question referred

      Should Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community [now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union], taken together, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in dispute in the present case (Article 43(2) of the Income Tax Code, approved by Decree-Law 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law 109-B/2001 of 27 December 2001), with the amendments introduced by Law 67-A/2007 of 31 December 2007, which inserted paragraphs 7 and 8 (now paragraphs 9 and 10) into Article 72 of the Income Tax Code, the purpose of which is to enable the capital gains realised from the sale of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) by a resident of another Member State of the European Union (France) not to be subject, by election, to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?


title: Case C-392/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 May 2019 — VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 May 2019 — VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz
      (Case C-392/19)
      (2019/C 270/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: VG Bild-Kunst

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz

         Question referred

      Does the embedding of a work — which is available on a freely accessible website with the consent of the rightholder — in the website of a third party by way of framing constitute communication to the public of that work within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) where it occurs through circumvention of protection measures against framing taken or instigated by the rightholder?

         (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-403/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
      (Case C-403/19)
      (2019/C 270/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Société Générale SA

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

         Question referred

      In the light of Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does the fact that the application of the rules set out in paragraph 5 of this decision, in order to compensate for the double taxation of dividends paid to a company liable for corporation tax in the Member State of residence by a company resident in another Member State and subject, by virtue of the exercise by that Member States of the power of taxation, to withholding tax, is liable to create a disadvantage to the detriment of transactions involving the securities of foreign companies carried out by companies liable for corporation tax in the first Member State, mean that that State, where it has been decided to grant a concession in response to the double taxation, goes beyond waiving its right to receive the tax revenue that it would derive from the imposition of corporation tax on the dividends in question?


title: Case C-441/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2019 — TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2019 — TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
      (Case C-441/19)
      (2019/C 270/27)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ‘s-Hertogenbosch

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TQ

         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 10 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) (“the Return Directive”), read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”), recital 22 of the preamble and Article 5(a) of the Return Directive and Article 15 of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) (‘the Qualification Directive’), be interpreted as meaning that, before imposing an obligation to return on an unaccompanied minor, a Member State should ascertain and then should investigate whether, at least in principle, adequate reception facilities exist and are available in the country of origin?

                  2.

                  Should Article 6(1) of the Return Directive, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not permitted to make distinctions on the basis of age when granting lawful residence on a territory if it is established that an unaccompanied minor does not qualify for refugee status or subsidiary protection?

                  3.

                  Should Article 6(4) of the Return Directive be interpreted as meaning that, if an unaccompanied minor does not comply with his obligation to return and the Member State does not and will not undertake any concrete actions to proceed with removal, the obligation to return should be suspended and lawful residence should be granted? Should Article 8(1) of the Return Directive be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State imposes a return decision on an unaccompanied minor without then undertaking any removal actions until the unaccompanied minor reaches the age of eighteen, that must be considered to be contrary to the principle of loyalty and the principle of sincere cooperation in the Union?

         (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008, L 348, p. 98).

         (2)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011, L 337, p. 9).


title: Case C-445/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark
      (Case C-445/19)
      (2019/C 270/28)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

         Defendants: TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF (1)) apply also in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the unlawful State aid constituted public service compensation which was subsequently found to be compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU and in which approval was granted on the basis of an assessment of the entire public service undertaking’s overall financial situation, including its capitalisation?

                  2.

                  Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF) apply also in respect of amounts which, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are transferred from the aid recipient to affiliated undertakings pursuant to a public-law obligation but which are categorised by a final Commission decision as constituting an advantage for the aid recipient within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?

                  3.

                  Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF) apply also in respect of State aid which the aid recipient, in circumstances such as those of the present case, received from a publicly-controlled undertaking, given that the latter’s resources are derived partly from sales of the aid recipient’s services?

         (1)  Judgment of 12 February 2008 (Case C-199/06, CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, EU:C:2008:79).


title: Case C-475/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2019 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/25

      Appeal brought on 20 June 2019 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
      (Case C-475/19 P)
      (2019/C 270/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, acting as Agent, M. Kottmann, M. Winkelmüller and F. van Schewick, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  1.

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission;

                  2.

                  annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1)

                  3.

                  annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (2)

                  4.

                  annul the Commission communications in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 10 March 2017, 11 August 2017, 15 December 2017 and 9 March 2018 (3) in so far as they relate to the harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006;

                  5.

                  as an alternative to the second, third and fourth heads of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court;

                  6.

                  order the Commission to pay the costs in the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on the following three grounds of appeal:
      First, the judgment under appeal infringes the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU as it dismisses the Federal Republic of Germany’s heads of claim seeking the annulment of the communications at issue as inadmissible. The General Court failed to recognise that the communications at issue are intended to produce binding legal effects that are not identical to the legal effects of the decisions at issue.
      Second, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 17(5), of Regulation No 305/2011. The General Court failed to recognise that, under these provisions, the Commission was both empowered and obliged to take one of the measures proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany.
      Third, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 18(2), in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 17(3), of Regulation No 305/2011. The General Court failed to recognise that under those provisions the Commission was obliged to investigate whether the standards at issue jeopardised the observance of compliance with the basic requirements for construction works.

         (1)  OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113.

         (2)  OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62.

         (3)  OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32; OJ 2017 C 267, p. 16; OJ 2017 C 435, p. 41; OJ 2018 C 92, p. 139.


title: Case C-498/19 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2019 by Romania against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Case T-530/18, Romania v Commission

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/27

      Appeal brought on 27 June 2019 by Romania against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Case T-530/18, Romania v Commission
      (Case C-498/19 P)
      (2019/C 270/30)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Appellant: Romania (represented by: C.-R. Canțăr, E. Gane, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the appeal, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-530/18 in its entirety, and give a new ruling on Case T-530/18 upholding the action for partial annulment of Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD): (1)

                              (a)

                              as regards sub-measure 1a in its entirety (EUR 13 184 846,61 for the years 2015 and 2016);

                              (b)

                              as regards sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in their entirety (EUR 45 532 000,96 for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016) and, in the alternative, in part for the period prior to 19 September 2015 (EUR 21 315 857,50);
                              or

                  —

                  uphold the appeal, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-530/18 in its entirety, and remit Case T-530/18 back to the General Court so that it may give a new ruling on the action and, in so doing, uphold the action for annulment and annul in part Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 as described above;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

                  A.

                     Infringement of Articles 263 and 297 TFEU, and failure to observe the principle of legal certainty

                              i.

                                 The General Court did not correctly legally assess whether the notification was complete and correct and incorrectly classified the notification issued by the Commission as capable of triggering the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU. This approach by the General Court is also at odds with the principle of legal certainty.

                              Romania considers that the presence of any errors relating to the essential elements of a decision such as Decision 2018/873 is capable of compromising the notification and raises serious issues from the point of view of the principle of legal certainty. Consequently, it is sufficient that some errors are present, such as those established by the General Court, for the notification issued by the Commission to be incapable of triggering the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.
                              The General Court classified the differences between the published and notified versions of Decision 2018/873 as minor, relying on the fact that the meaning of the text of the decision was unaltered, since the word ‘amount’ could only correspond to the ‘estimated by amount’ type of adjustment. Given that that type of adjustment does not exist, Romania considers that the legal reasoning of the General Court is incorrect and it can easily be observed that the meaning of the text of Decision 2018/873 has been affected, and that the notification has been compromised.

                              ii.

                              The General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 263 TFEU in the light of Article 297 TFEU by failing to take into consideration the effects of the publication of Decision 2018/873 in the Official Journal of the European Union from the point of view of effective information and the principle of legal certainty.
                              According to the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, what is relevant in the context of exercising the right to bring proceedings is effective information relating to the content of the contested EU measure, and not the moment when it enters into force or the moment when it produces legal effects.
                              The moment from which the period of 2 months for bringing an action for annulment of a measure such as Decision 2018/873, which must be notified but which, according to the consistent and long-standing practice of the issuer, must also be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, begins to run must be the moment of publication, plus the period of 14 days laid down by Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
                              That solution is all the more necessary in view of the specific circumstances in which Decision 2018/873 was notified to the Romanian authorities and published — circumstances which reveal differences between the notified text and the published text which concern essential elements of that decision.

                              iii.

                              The General Court failed to observe the principle of legal certainty by considering that one of the inconsistencies raised by Romania (concerning the type of adjustment — ‘estimated by amount’ versus ‘flat rate’) constitutes a minor clerical error which was made in the notified and published text but which was not made either in the course of the administrative procedure or in the summary report and which does not give rise to confusion as to the nature of the adjustment.

                              iv.

                              The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU by finding that the differences between the notified text and the text published in the Official Journal of the European Union concerning provisions of Decision 2018/873 addressed to other Member States of the European Union were irrelevant and without effect, in view of the privileged applicant status of Member States.

                  B.

                     Failure to observe the principle of audi alteram partem, including in relation to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

                  Romania considers that the General Court failed to observe the principle of audi alteram partem by failing to offer the Romanian authorities the opportunity to adopt a position with regard to the information, communicated by the Commission in response to the question put by that court, on the basis of which the action was dismissed as inadmissible.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29).


title: Case T-488/18: Action brought on 17 June 2019 — XC v Commission.

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/29

      Action brought on 17 June 2019 — XC v Commission.
      (Case T-488/18)
      (2019/C 270/31)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: XC (represented by: C. Bottino, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the act excluding the applicant from the open competition EPSO/AD/338/17;

                  —

                  Annul, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, European Commission decision C(2018) 3969;

                  —

                  Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18;

                  —

                  Order compensation for harm to the extent determined by the Court and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law
      Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU of the applicant’s exclusion from open competition EPSO/AD/338/17

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted in particular by the judgment settling Cases T-361/10 Pachitis v Commission and T-587/16 HM v Commission

                  2.

                  Second plea in law based on the fact that, according to the applicant, the preparation procedure for the e-tray exercise constitutes an infringement of the obligation of secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, based on the fact that the conduct of the e-tray exercise in accordance with the arrangements provided for by EPSO constituted indirect discrimination against the applicant in terms of access and an infringement of the obligation to provide reasonable adjustment.
                  Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, of European Commission Decision C(2018) 3969

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law based on the infringement of the principles set out in the judgments in Cases T-516/14 Alexandrou v Commission and C-491/15 P Typke v Commission

                  Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law alleging that EPSO was not entitled to fail to submit its request for re-examination to the selection board within the meaning of point 4.2.2 of the General rules governing open competitions or to take its place in decisions and/or statements of reasons.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law alleging infringement of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the Directive concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability.


title: Case C-474/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/34

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening
      (Case C-474/19)
      (2019/C 288/41)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Vänersborgs tingsrätt, mark- och miljödomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Naturskyddsföreningen i Härryda, Göteborgs Ornitologiska Förening

         Defendants: Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, U.T.B.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the prohibition covers only those species which were listed in Annex 1 to Directive 2009/147, or are at some level at risk, or are suffering a long-term decline in population?

                  2.

                  Are the terms ‘intentional killing/disruption/destruction’ in Article 5(a)-(d) of Directive 2009/147 and of Article 12(a)-(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby, should the purpose of the measures be manifestly different from the killing or disturbance of species (for example, forestry measures or land development), there must be a risk of adverse effects on the conservation status of the species caused by the measures to apply the prohibitions?

                  3.

                  If the answer to any part of the second question is that harm at a level other than the individual level is to be assessed in order for the prohibition to apply, is the assessment therefore to be carried out on any of the following scales or at any of these levels:

                              a.

                              a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union;

                              b.

                              the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species);

                              c.

                              the meta-population concerned;

                              d.

                              the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?

                  4.

                  Is the expression ‘deterioration or destruction’ as regards the animals’ breeding range in Article 12(d) of Directive 92/43 to be interpreted as excluding a national practice which means that, in spite of precautionary measures, the continuous ecological functionality (CEF) of the habitat of the species concerned is lost, whether by harm, destruction or deterioration, directly or indirectly, individually or cumulatively, so that the prohibition is applied only if the conservation status of the species concerned, at one of the levels referred to in question 3, is likely to deteriorate?

                  5.

                  If the answer to the fourth question is negative, that is to say that harm of a level other than one leading to the habitat in the individual area being assessed in order for the prohibition to be applied, is the assessment thus to be made on any of the following scales or at any of these levels:

                              a.

                              a certain geographically restricted part of the population as defined under (a), for example within the boundaries of the region, the Member State or the European Union;

                              b.

                              the local population concerned (biologically isolated from other populations of the species);

                              c.

                              the meta-population concerned;

                              d.

                              the whole population of the species within the relevant biogeographical regional section of the species’ range?
                              Questions 2 and 4 posed by the mark- och miljödomstolen (Land and Environment Court, Sweden) include the question of whether the strict protection in the directives ceases to be applicable to species for which the directive’s objective (favourable conservation status) has been achieved.

         (1)  OJ 2010, L 20, p. 7.

         (2)  OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-651/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Stalna služba u Sesvetama (Croatia) lodged on 30 July 2018 and 15 January 2019 — QB, RA v Jadransko osiguranje d.d

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Stalna služba u Sesvetama (Croatia) lodged on 30 July 2018 and 15 January 2019 — QB, RA v Jadransko osiguranje d.d
      (Case C-651/18)
      (2019/C 295/02)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Referring court

      Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu — Stalna služba u Sesvetama

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: QB, RA

         Defendant: Jadransko osiguranje d.d

         By order of 11 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) declared that the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (Municipal Civil Court, Zagreb), by decisions of 30 July 2018 and 15 January 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-800/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2018 by Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-122/17: Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/2

      Appeal brought on 19 December 2018 by Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-122/17: Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo
      (Case C-800/18 P)
      (2019/C 295/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (represented by: I. Pakidanska and D. Dimitrova, advokati)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Devin AD, European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 11 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall bear its own costs.


title: Case C-170/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2019 by CheapFlights International Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2018 in Case T-565/17: CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/3

      Appeal brought on 25 February 2019 by CheapFlights International Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2018 in Case T-565/17: CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group
      (Case C-170/19 P)
      (2019/C 295/04)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: CheapFlights International Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 10 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was manifestly unfounded.


title: Case C-196/19 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/3

      Appeal brought on 27 February 2019 by UC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-572/17, UC v Parliament
      (Case C-196/19 P)
      (2019/C 295/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: UC (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      By order of 23 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-300/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2019 — UQ v Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2019 — UQ v Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.
      (Case C-300/19)
      (2019/C 295/06)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UQ

         Defendant: Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies must always be calculated retrospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue?

                  2.

                  Second question: May Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies may be calculated prospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue without the need for subsequent terminations to be regarded as abusive?

                  3.

                  Third question: May the reference periods in Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted in such a way as to permit account to be taken of dismissals or terminations taking place within 30 or 90 days of the dismissal at issue as falling at some point within those periods?

         (1)  OJ 1998, L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-359/19 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2019 by Meblo Trade d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2019 in Case T-263/18: Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/4

      Appeal brought on 5 May 2019 by Meblo Trade d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2019 in Case T-263/18: Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int
      (Case C-359/19 P)
      (2019/C 295/07)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (represented by: A. Ivanova, адвокат)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o.
      By order of 10 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal shall not be allowed to proceed and that Meblo Trade d.o.o. shall bear its own costs.


title: Case C-393/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — Criminal proceedings against OM

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — Criminal proceedings against OM
      (Case C-393/19)
      (2019/C 295/08)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Apelativen sad — Plovdiv

         Party to the main proceedings

      OM

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that pursuant to Article 242(8) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code, ‘the NK’) of the Republic of Bulgaria, according to which a means of transport used to commit aggravated smuggling which belongs to a third person who neither knew nor could or should have known that its employee was committing the offence must be confiscated for the benefit of the State, is unlawful on the grounds that it undermines the fair balance between the public interest and the need to protect the right to property?

                  2.

                  Is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision such as that pursuant to Article 242(8) of the NK, according to which a means of transport owned by a person who is not the person who committed the offence can be confiscated without the owner being guaranteed direct access to the courts to state its case, is unlawful?


title: Case C-414/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2019 — E.M., M.S. v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               2.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Erding (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2019 — E.M., M.S. v Eurowings GmbH
      (Case C-414/19)
      (2019/C 295/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Erding

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: E.M., M.S.

         Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

         Question referred

      In the case of an air route consisting of several segments, are flights that carry connecting passengers and have not been affected by a disruption to the connecting flight also to be taken into account when determining the distance pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

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