title: Case T-540/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FZ and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Types of posts — Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts — Article 30 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations — Administrators in transition (AD 13) — Administrators (AD 12) — Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations only allowed within the career streams corresponding to the type of post occupied — Access to the type of post ‘Head of Unit’ or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ exclusively in accordance with the procedure under Article 4 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Concept of an act adversely affecting an official — Confirmatory act — Lis pendens — Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FZ and Others v Commission
      (Case T-540/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules on grading in the types of posts - Article 30 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations - Administrators in transition (AD 13) - Administrators (AD 12) - Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations only allowed within the career streams corresponding to the type of post occupied - Access to the type of post ‘Head of Unit’ or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ exclusively in accordance with the procedure under Article 4 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Concept of an act adversely affecting an official - Confirmatory act - Lis pendens - Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 93/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: FZ, and the 8 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, subsequently by G. Gattinara and C. Berardis-Kayser and finally by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Chemaï and M. Dean, subsequently by L. Deneys, J. Steele and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents); and the Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants in the ‘administrator in transition’ or ‘administrator’ types of post, with the consequence that, with effect from 1 January 2014, they were no longer eligible for promotion to the next higher grade.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it is brought by FZ and the eight officials of the European Commission, other than GL, whose names are listed in the annex.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as inadmissible and, in any event, as unfounded in so far as it is brought by GL.

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the officials whose names are listed in the annex.

                  4.

                  Orders FZ and the other officials whose names are listed in the annex to bear half of their own costs.

                  5.

                  Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-18/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Kakol v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Non-admission of a candidate to take part in the tests of the assessment centre — Non-recognition of qualifications or diplomas — Admission to a previous competition — Conditions for similar competitions — Concordance rule between the request and the complaint — Res judicata — Non-compliance with the prior administrative procedure — Measure adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations — Competence of the authority which adopted the measure — Claim for damages)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Kakol v Commission
      (Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17) (1)

      ((Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Non-admission of a candidate to take part in the tests of the assessment centre - Non-recognition of qualifications or diplomas - Admission to a previous competition - Conditions for similar competitions - Concordance rule between the request and the complaint - Res judicata - Non-compliance with the prior administrative procedure - Measure adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations - Competence of the authority which adopted the measure - Claim for damages))
      (2019/C 93/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decisions of 14 February 2014, notified on 2 May 2016, and of 25 November 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre tests for competition AD/177/10, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), on the ground that she did not fulfil the specific conditions relating to qualifications or diplomas required in the competition notice, or rejecting her complaint against that refusal of admission, and, secondly, that the Commission be ordered to pay her the sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result of the vexatious nature of the processing of her application

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Joins Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                  Rules, in Case T-641/16 RENV, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment and, dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action in Case T-137/17;

                  4.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to Cases T-641/16 RENV and T-137/17 and Cases F-48/14 and T-152/15 P.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014 (proceedings initially brought before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-1/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-750/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Liability)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — FV v Council
      (Case T-750/16) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Liability))
      (2019/C 93/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: FV (represented by: initially, L. Levi and A. Tymen, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 December 2015 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, if necessary, the decision of 19 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 8 December 2015 by which FV has been placed on leave in the interests of the service;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by FV;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-46/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigán (Pet Cuisine) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark Pet Cuisine — Earlier EU figurative mark The Pet CUISINE alimento para mascotas felices Genial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TDH Group v EUIPO — Comercial de Servicios Agrigán (Pet Cuisine)
      (Case T-46/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark Pet Cuisine - Earlier EU figurative mark The Pet CUISINE alimento para mascotas felices Genial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: TDH Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Chen, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Comercial de Servicios Agrigán, SA (Huesca, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 November 2016 (Case R 685/2016 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Comercial de Servicios Agrigán and TDH Group.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders TDH Group to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-128/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Torné v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations — Leave on personal grounds — Engagement at the same time as a member of the temporary staff — Transitional measures relating to certain details in the calculation of pension rights — Request for an advance ruling — Act having an adverse effect — Purpose of the transitional measures — Application ratione personae — Entry into service)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Torné v Commission
      (Case T-128/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations - Leave on personal grounds - Engagement at the same time as a member of the temporary staff - Transitional measures relating to certain details in the calculation of pension rights - Request for an advance ruling - Act having an adverse effect - Purpose of the transitional measures - Application ratione personae - Entry into service))
      (2019/C 93/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Isabel Torné (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially G. Berscheid and A.C. Simon, subsequently G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, and lastly G. Berscheid and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: initially S. Manessi, and subsequently P. Martinet, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers); European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers); European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyer); European Maritime Safety Agency (represented by: S. Dunlop, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers); European Banking Authority (represented by: S. Giordano and J. Overett Somnier, acting as Agents); European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: A. Lorenzet and N. Vasse, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers); and European Asylum Support Office (represented by: initially W. Stevens, and subsequently M. Vitsa, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Duron, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 16 December 2015 for an advance ruling setting the date of her entry into service within the meaning of the transitional provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union regarding certain methods for calculating pension rights.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 16 April 2016, confirmed by the note of the Office for ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) of 29 April 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Isabel Torné;

                  3.

                  Orders the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA), the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) to bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case T-464/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TP v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Deduction from salary — Maintenance awarded by a national court in the context of divorce proceedings — Sincere cooperation with the national courts — Circumscribed powers — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour — Rule of correspondence — Act adversely affecting a person — Claim for compensation — Compliance with the pre-litigation procedure)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TP v Commission
      (Case T-464/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Deduction from salary - Maintenance awarded by a national court in the context of divorce proceedings - Sincere cooperation with the national courts - Circumscribed powers - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour - Rule of correspondence - Act adversely affecting a person - Claim for compensation - Compliance with the pre-litigation procedure))
      (2019/C 93/63)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission to make a monthly deduction from the applicant’s salary in respect of maintenance to be paid to his ex-wife pursuant to the ruling of an Italian court and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders TP to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case T-477/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Haswani v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Error of assessment)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Haswani v Council
      (Case T-477/17) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Error of assessment))
      (2019/C 93/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Baumgart, A. Bouquet and A. Tizzano, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, secondly, an application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of Decision 2017/917 and Implementing Regulation 2017/907.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr George Haswani to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-489/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of the position of a bottle closure) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark representing a bottle closure — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Windspiel Manufaktur v EUIPO (Representation of the position of a bottle closure)
      (Case T-489/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark representing a bottle closure - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH (Daun, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing, M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 (Case R 1374/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a bottle closure as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Windspiel Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case T-572/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UC v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2015 promotion round — Staff report — Award of merit points — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-material damage)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/53

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UC v Parliament
      (Case T-572/17) (1)

      ((Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion round - Staff report - Award of merit points - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-material damage))
      (2019/C 93/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and J. Van Pottelberge, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the applicant's staff report for 2015, of the decision to award him two merit points for that year and of the decision to reject his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders UC to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-576/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EL SEÑORITO — Earlier national word mark SEÑORITA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/53

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)
      (Case T-576/17) (1)

      ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark EL SEÑORITO - Earlier national word mark SEÑORITA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/67)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Mas Que Vinos Global, S.L. (Dosbarrios, Spain) (represented by: M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Jose Estevez, SA (JESA) (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 1775/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between JESA and Mas Que Vinos Global.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mas Que Vinos Global S. L. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-671/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU work mark TURBO-K — Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K — Relative ground for refusal — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/54

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K)
      (Case T-671/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU work mark TURBO-K - Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K - Relative ground for refusal - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill))
      (2019/C 93/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and E. Morris, Solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 2135/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Turbo-K and Turbo-K International.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

                  3.

                  Orders Turbo-K International Ltd and Turbo-K Ltd each to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case T-761/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UR v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) — Eligibility condition — Required qualification — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — UR v Commission
      (Case T-761/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) - Eligibility condition - Required qualification - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations))
      (2019/C 93/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 11 August 2017 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/322/16, taken following a review, not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders UR to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-801/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de)
      (Case T-801/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/70)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 524/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 3-star-guarantee.de as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-802/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/56

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED)
      (Case T-802/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/71)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 525/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest 5-star-guarantee.de CLINICALLY TESTED as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-803/17: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/57

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (ORIGINAL excellent dermatest)
      (Case T-803/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ORIGINAL excellent dermatest - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/72)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 526/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign ORIGINAL excellent dermatest as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-832/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark achtung! — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/57

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)
      (Case T-832/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark achtung! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 93/73)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially A. Söder, J. Schäfer and D. Walicka, and subsequently A. Söder, J. Schäfer and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark achtung!.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders achtung! GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-7/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one) ((EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one — Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/58

      Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)
      (Case T-7/18) (1)

      (((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one - Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 93/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 (Case R 808/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Business and technology working as one as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Inforsacom Logicalis GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-30/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (Support pillow) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design No 2371591-0001 (Support pillow) — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Sending of a document to EUIPO by means of a contact form — Sending of a document to EUIPO by electronic means and by fax)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/58

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (Support pillow)
      (Case T-30/18) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design No 2371591-0001 (Support pillow) - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Sending of a document to EUIPO by means of a contact form - Sending of a document to EUIPO by electronic means and by fax))
      (2019/C 93/75)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Parties

         Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Litváková, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Dvectis CZ and Yado.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yado s.r.o.;

                  3.

                  Orders Dvectis CZ s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case T-40/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark SOLIDPOWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/59

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)
      (Case T-40/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark SOLIDPOWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 93/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann, K. Middelhoff, and C. Saatkamp, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 (Case R 1182/2017-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark SOLIDPOWER.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-91/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)
      (Case T-91/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 93/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, Barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 (Case R 1544/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign DIAMOND CARD as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Equity Cheque Capital Corporation to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-368/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ETI Bumbo — Earlier EU figurative mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the signs — Distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Grupo Bimbo (ETI Bumbo)
      (Case T-368/18) (1)

      ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ETI Bumbo - Earlier EU figurative mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the signs - Distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 93/78)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Eskişehir, Turkey) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, P. Merino Baylos, D. Gómez Sánchez and N. Martínez de las Rivas Malagón, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. A. Fernández-Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 (Case R 1459/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Bimbo and ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders ETI Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case T-160/18: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI — Declaration of invalidity — Right to the name Vassiliki in Greece — Relative ground for invalidity regarding the infringement of the right to a name — Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/61

      Order of the General Court of 16 January 2019 — Theodorakidi v EUIPO — Benopoulou (THYREOS VASSILIKI)
      (Case T-160/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark THYREOS VASSILIKI - Declaration of invalidity - Right to the name Vassiliki in Greece - Relative ground for invalidity regarding the infringement of the right to a name - Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 93/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vassiliki Theodorakidi (Veroia, Greece) (represented by: F. Ikonomidou Ikonomou, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vassiliki Benopoulou (Kifissia, Greece)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 (Case R 40/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms Benopoulou and Ms Theodorakidi.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Ms Vassiliki Theodorakidi shall bear her own costs and pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case T-304/18: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2019 — MLPS v Commission (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal by the Commission to institute proceedings under Article 7 TEU — Act not open to challenge — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/61

      Order of the General Court of 23 January 2019 — MLPS v Commission
      (Case T-304/18) (1)

      ((Action for annulment and for failure to act - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Refusal by the Commission to institute proceedings under Article 7 TEU - Act not open to challenge - No direct concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 93/80)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Gibaud, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa–Lacombe and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 March 2018 refusing to take any further action on a complaint requesting that proceedings be brought on the basis of Article 7 TEU against the French Republic and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully refrained from dealing with that complaint.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-645/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2018 — NE

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 15 October 2018 — NE
      (Case C-645/18)
      (2019/C 122/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: NE

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay and social security documentation or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

         (1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.


title: Case C-712/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2018 — ZR, AR, BS

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2018 — ZR, AR, BS
      (Case C-712/18)
      (2019/C 122/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: ZR, AR and BS

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

         (1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11.


title: Case C-791/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2018 — Stichting Schoonzicht, other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 December 2018 — Stichting Schoonzicht, other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
      (Case C-791/18)
      (2019/C 122/06)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Stichting Schoonzicht

         Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Articles 184 to 187 of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) preclude a national adjustment regime for capital goods which provides for an adjustment spread over a number of years, whereby in the year the goods enter into use — which year is moreover the first adjustment year — the total amount of the initial deduction for that capital good is adjusted (revised) in a single step, if, upon the entry into use thereof, it turns out that that initial deduction deviates from the deduction which the taxable person is entitled to apply on the basis of the actual use of the capital good?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
                  Must Article 189(b) or (c) of the 2006 VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the single adjustment of the initial deduction in the first year of the adjustment period referred to in Question 1 constitutes a measure which the Netherlands may adopt for the application of Article 187 of the 2006 VAT Directive?

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


title: Case C-231/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — NK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception for vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/15

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — NK
      (Case C-231/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Exception for vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses)
      (2019/C 131/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

      NK

         Other parties to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg, Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Oldenburg

         Operative part of the judgment

      The term ‘local markets’ in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014, must be interpreted as referring neither to the transaction carried out between a livestock wholesaler and a farmer nor to the livestock wholesaler himself, so that the exception provided for in that provision cannot be extended to include vehicles transporting live animals directly from farms to local slaughterhouses.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-757/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Société générale v ECB
      (Case T-757/16) (1)

      ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 328/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset-Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), and of Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/72 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case C-269/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v C and J, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46(6) and (8) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Right to an effective remedy — Authorisation to remain in the territory of a Member State — Directive 2008/115/EC — Articles 2, 3 and 15 — Illegal stay — Detention)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/3

      Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v C and J, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-269/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(6) and (8) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Right to an effective remedy - Authorisation to remain in the territory of a Member State - Directive 2008/115/EC - Articles 2, 3 and 15 - Illegal stay - Detention))
      (2018/C 341/03)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, J, S

         Respondents: C, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the order

      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 and Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national, whose application for international protection has been rejected at first instance by the competent administrative authority as being manifestly unfounded, cannot be detained with a view to his removal, in the case where, in accordance with Article 46(6) and (8) of Directive 2013/32, he is lawfully authorised to remain on the national territory until a decision has been taken on his action relating to the right to remain on that territory pending the ruling on the appeal brought against the decision which rejected his application for international protection.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case T-477/18: Action brought on 7 August 2018 — Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle and an arrow)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/27

      Action brought on 7 August 2018 — Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle and an arrow)
      (Case T-477/18)
      (2018/C 341/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a bottle and an arrow) — Application for registration No 14 481 519

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 in Case R 2203/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in the part that found that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2017 that the signs produced a different overall impression which would exclude a likelihood of confusion is annulled and to remain valid the decision of Opposition Division of 21 August 2017;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-173/18: Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/12

      Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-173/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/22)
      Language of the case: Hungarian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case C-63/17: Order of the President of the Court of 13 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Limoges — France) — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/10

      Order of the President of the Court of 13 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Limoges — France) — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
      (Case C-63/17) (1)

      (2018/C 341/14)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case C-328/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-6/17, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (Black Label by Equivalenza)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/3

      Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-6/17, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (Black Label by Equivalenza)
      (Case C-328/18 P)
      (2018/C 341/04)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

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

         Other parties to the proceedings: Equivalenza Manufactory, S.L. and ITM Entreprises SAS

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the EU trade mark regulation for the following reasons:

                  1.

                  The General Court contradicted itself by acknowledging that there is a visual similarity while at the same time denying that the signs are visually similar;

                  2.

                  The General Court erred by confirming without qualification the alleged conceptual difference found by the Board of Appeal;

                  3.

                  The General Court erred by examining buying habits in the context of the examination of the similarity of the signs, instead of doing so when carrying out the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

                  4.

                  The General Court erred by stating that the signs at issue are not similar, despite having acknowledged that their phonetic similarity is average.


title: Case T-479/18: Action brought on 3 August 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (Premiere)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/28

      Action brought on 3 August 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (Premiere)
      (Case T-479/18)
      (2018/C 341/40)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Premiere — Application No 16 660 383

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2365/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-256/17: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 2 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, intervener: Koninklijke PostNL BV

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/11

      Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 2 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt, intervener: Koninklijke PostNL BV
      (Case C-256/17) (1)

      (2018/C 341/15)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case C-392/17: Order of the President of the Court of 15 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/11

      Order of the President of the Court of 15 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA
      (Case C-392/17) (1)

      (2018/C 341/16)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case C-205/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești — Romania) — Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv, Raluca-Marinela Trașcă v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/13

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești — Romania) — Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv, Raluca-Marinela Trașcă v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea
      (Case C-205/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/23)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.


title: Case C-413/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by H against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2018 in Case T-271/10 RENV: H v Council of the European Union

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/4

      Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by H against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2018 in Case T-271/10 RENV: H v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-413/18 P)
      (2018/C 341/05)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocatessa)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of 11 April 2018 in case T-271/10 RENV, H v Council of the European Union, insofar as it rejects the appellant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of personnel of the European Union Police Mission, by which the appellant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, in the alternative, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission referred to in Article 6 of Council decision 2009/906/CFSP (1) of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and insofar as it rejects the claim for damages due to the illegality of the above-mentioned decisions;

                  —

                  give a decision on the case, and, if necessary, refer the case back to the General Court;

                  —

                  order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs in case C-455/14 P as well as in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  —

                  The appellant claims an infringement of Article 216 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, insofar as the judgment under appeal was issued by a Chamber composed partially of the same judges who issued the order overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

                  —

                  Regarding the powers of the Head of Mission to adopt decisions relating to the redeployment of the staff and the role of the Member State of origin in the framework of the transfer of the seconded staff, the appellant claims an infringement of Article 61, paragraph II, of the Statute of the Court of Justice insofar as the judge at first instance did not comply with the ruling in the case referred back by the European Court of Justice.

                  —

                  Distortion of evidence

                  —

                  Infringement of the right of defence and equal treatment, insofar as the appellant was not heard with regard to some documents and written observations submitted by the Council during the procedure at first instance.

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure insofar as it is stated that the appellant will bear the costs in case C-455/14 P, in which she succeeded.

         (1)  OJ 2009, L 322, p. 22.


title: Case T-180/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for in that agreement — Act concluding the agreement — Applicability of the agreement and protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/24

      Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Front Polisario v Council
      (Case T-180/14) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco - Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for in that agreement - Act concluding the agreement - Applicability of the agreement and protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 381/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

         Party intervening in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of, first, Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 2013 L 349, p. 1) and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/393 of 12 March 2018 approving, on behalf of the European Union, amendments to the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 2018 L 69, p. 60).

         Operative part of the order

      The Court orders:

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hanra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 6.6.2014.


title: Case T-750/17: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after commencement of the action — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/30

      Order of the General Court of 19 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission
      (Case T-750/17) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after commencement of the action - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 392/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6020 final of 29 August 2017, rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to the Commission’s comments and the detailed opinion of the Republic of Malta issued in the framework of notification procedure 2016/398/PL, pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene.

                  3.

                  Each party is to bear its own costs.

                  4.

                  The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-79/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Internal competition — Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications — Non-admission to the tests in a competition)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Schoonjans v Commission
      (Case T-79/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Internal competition - Constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants - Eligibility condition relating to the function group to which the candidate belongs on the date of expiry of the deadline for submitting applications - Non-admission to the tests in a competition))
      (2018/C 392/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of the applicant and, second, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the jury of internal competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2) rejecting the application of Mr Alain Schoonjans;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gazprom Neft v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Legal basis — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity — Proportionality)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/16

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Gazprom Neft v Council
      (Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Legal basis - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 392/19)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Gazprom Neft PAO, formerly Gazprom Neft OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, J. Charles, lawyers, and S. Cogman, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by C. Brodie and S. Simmons, and subsequently by C. Brodie and V. Kaye, and subsequently by C. Brodie, C. Crane and S. Brandon, and finally by C. Brodie, R. Fadoju and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna QC and C. Banner, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Article 1(2)(b), (c) and (d), Article 1(3) and (4), Article 4, Article 4a and Article 7(1)(a) of, and Annex III to, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54) and Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58); and (ii) Article 3, Article 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Article 5(2)(b), (c) and (d), Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 11(1)(a) of, and Annex VI to, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders that Cases T-735/14 and T-799/14 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  3.

                  Orders Gazprom Neft PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-93/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission (State aid — Steel sector — Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Duty to state reasons — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Duferco Long Products v Commission
      (Case T-93/17) (1)

      ((State aid - Steel sector - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the steel sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Duty to state reasons - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))
      (2018/C 392/30)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Duferco Long Products SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and M. Favart, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, V. Bottka and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco (OJ 2016, L 314, p. 22).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Duferco Long Products SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-737/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/17

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Vnesheconombank v Council
      (Case T-737/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 392/20)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and G. Étienne, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-94/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tigha — Earlier EU word mark TAIGA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)
      (Case T-94/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark tigha - Earlier EU word mark TAIGA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark))
      (2018/C 392/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden) (represented by C. Eckhartt and K. Thanbichler-Brandl, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 (Case R 693/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Taiga and ACTC.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.