title: Case C-6/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 January 2018 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2017 in Case T-26/16, Hellenic Republic v European Commission

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/10

         Appeal brought on 3 January 2018 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2017 in Case T-26/16, Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-6/18 P)
   (2018/C 063/14)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, Ι. Pachi and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that this appeal should be upheld, that the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2017 in Case Τ-26/16 should be set aside in so far as the General Court thereby dismissed its action, that the action brought by the Hellenic Republic on 22 January 2016 should be upheld, that the decision of the European Commission 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 (1) should be annulled to the extent to which that decision imposed on the Hellenic Republic, following the IR/2009/004/GR and IR/2009/0017/GR investigations, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections with respect to delays in recovery procedures, non reporting and weaknesses in debt management procedures, to a total amount of EUR 11 534 827,97, and that the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
   The first ground of appeal, with reference to the part of the Decision whereby the Commission imposed a flat-rate financial correction on the Hellenic Republic, is based on a claim that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 31 and 32-33 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (2) erred in law, with respect to the application of the guidelines in Commission Document 5330/1997 for the application of flat-rate corrections in the case of Article 32(4) of Regulation 1290/2005, infringed the principle of legal certainty, and failed to state sufficient reasons in the judgment under appeal.
   The second ground of appeal, with reference to the part of the Decision whereby the Commission imposed a one-off correction, is based on a claim that the General Court in the judgment under appeal misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 32(4) and 49 of Regulation No 1290/2005, disregarded the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty, and stated contradictory and insufficient reasons in that judgment.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (
         OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (
         OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case T-828/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission
   (Case T-828/17)
   (2018/C 063/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule:

               —

               That the decision of the PMO of 28 February 2017 notifying the applicant that the expatriation allowance of 16 % granted to him and the transport expenses which he had received under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, during the period of employment at EASME, with effect from 16 May 2014, is annulled;

               —

               Insofar as necessary, that the salary slips corrected following the notification of that decision [are annulled];

               —

               That the defendant shall pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-636/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Emina Pedić

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Emina Pedić
   (Case C-636/17)
   (2018/C 063/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Korneuburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

      Respondent: Emina Pedić

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘all reasonable measures’ which the operating air carrier must have taken in order, in the event of extraordinary circumstances, to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation must be aimed merely at avoiding the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ (in this particular case, the allocation of a new (later) air traffic control slot by the European air surveillance organisation EUROCONTROL), or is the operating air carrier also required to take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations or long delays themselves?

               2.

               If the operating air carrier is required to take reasonable measures to avoid long delays themselves, is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the carriage of passengers on a route consisting of two (or more) flights, the air carrier must, in order to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation, merely take reasonable measures aimed at avoiding a delay to the flight which it is due to operate and which is subject to possible delay, or that it must also take reasonable measures to avoid a long delay for the individual passenger at the final destination (for example, by examining the possibility of rebooking the passenger onto another flight)?

               3.

               Are Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a long delay at the final destination, the operating air carrier — if it wishes to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation — must state and prove that it has taken reasonable measures to rebook the passenger onto a flight expected to enable him to reach his final destination without a long delay?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-292/16: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Revocation of the earlier EU figurative trade mark GOLD MOUNT — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)
   (Case T-292/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Revocation of the earlier EU figurative trade mark GOLD MOUNT - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 063/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. FZE, formerly Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez and I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

      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 intervening before the General Court: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hussey, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 (Case R 2492/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kaane American International Tobacco and Global Tobacco.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case C-674/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry
   (Case C-674/17)
   (2018/C 063/10)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola Pohjois-Savo — Kainuu ry

      Other parties: Suomen riistakeskus, Risto Mustonen, Kai Ruhanen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can regionally restricted derogation permits based on applications from individual hunters be granted for hunting for ‘population management purposes’ under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive, (1) having regard to the wording of that provision?

                           —

                           In considering that question, is it relevant that the discretion exercised when deciding on derogation permits is governed by a national population management plan and by the maximum number of individual animals killed laid down in a regulation, under which derogation permits may be granted annually for the territory of the Member State?

                           —

                           As part of that consideration, may account be taken of other factors, such as the objective of preventing harm to dogs and increasing the general feeling of security?

               2.

               Can derogation permits be granted for hunting for population management purposes, as described in the first question, on the basis that there is no satisfactory alternative within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive to prevent poaching?

                           —

                           In such circumstances, may account be taken of the practical difficulties associated with the monitoring of illegal poaching?

                           —

                           In considering whether a satisfactory alternative exists, is the objective of preventing harm to dogs and increasing the general feeling of security also potentially a relevant factor?

               3.

               How is the requirement laid down in Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive concerning the conservation status of species’ populations to be assessed when regionally restricted derogation permits are granted?

                           —

                           Is the conservation status of a species to be assessed by reference both to a particular area and to the territory of the Member State as a whole or by reference to an even wider range of the species in question?

                           —

                           Is it possible to satisfy the requirements for granting a derogation permit laid down in Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive even though the conservation status of a species cannot be regarded as favourable within the meaning of the directive on the basis of a proper assessment?

                           —

                           If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, in which circumstances could that be possible?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case T-293/16: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the earlier EU figurative trade mark GOLD MOUNT — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)
   (Case T-293/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the earlier EU figurative trade mark GOLD MOUNT - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 063/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. FZE, formerly Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez and I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

      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 intervening before the General Court: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hussey, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 (Case R 2699/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Kaane American International Tobacco and Global Tobacco.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case C-676/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești (Romania) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanţelor Public, and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești (Romania) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanţelor Public, and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-676/17)
   (2018/C 063/11)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Ploiești

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oana Mădălina Călin

      Respondents: Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanţelor Public, and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

      Question referred

   Can Article 4(3) TEU, which refers to the principle of sincere cooperation, Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 110 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness stemming from the principle of procedural autonomy be interpreted as precluding national legislation, namely Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 on administrative proceedings as interpreted by Ruling No 45/2016 of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (ICCJ) — Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice — Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law), under which the period within which a request for revision based on Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 may be submitted is one month from the date of notification of the final judgment subject to revision?


title: Case T-829/17: Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines)
   (Case T-829/17)
   (2018/C 063/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a circular shape consisting of two oblique red lines) — Application for registration No 13 681 151.

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2017 in Case R 1272/2017-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-246/17: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Национальный Продукт — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Article 177(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)
   (Case T-246/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Национальный Продукт - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Article 177(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 063/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 (Case R 1017/2016–1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Национальный Продукт as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-680/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (Netherlands) lodged on 5 December 2017 — Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan, Kamalaranee Vethanayagam v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (Netherlands) lodged on 5 December 2017 — Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan, Kamalaranee Vethanayagam v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-680/17)
   (2018/C 063/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sumanan Vethanayagam, Sobitha Sumanan, Kamalaranee Vethanayagam

      Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 32(3) of the Visa Code (1) preclude a sponsor, as an interested party in connection with the visa applications of applicants, from having a right of objection and appeal in his or her own name against the refusal of those visas?

               2.

               Should representation, as regulated in Article 8(4) of the Visa Code, be interpreted as meaning that responsibility (also) remains with the represented State, or that responsibility is wholly transferred to the representing State, with the result that the represented State itself is no longer competent?

               3.

               In the event that Article 8(4)(d) of the Visa Code allows both forms of representation as referred to in Question 2, which Member State must then be regarded as the Member State that has taken the final decision as referred to in Article 32(3) of the Visa Code?

               4.

               Is an interpretation of Article 8(4) and Article 32(3) of the Visa Code according to which visa applicants can lodge an appeal against the rejection of their applications only with an administrative or judicial body of the representing Member State, and not in the represented Member State for which the visa application was made, consistent with effective legal protection as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter? Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the avenue of legal recourse offered should guarantee that an applicant has the right to be heard, that he has the right to bring proceedings in a language of one of the Member States, that the level of the charges or court fees for the procedures governing the lodging of objections and appeals are not disproportionate for the applicant and that there is a possibility of funded legal aid? Given the margin of discretion enjoyed by the State in matters relating to visas, is it relevant to the answer to this question whether a Swiss court has sufficient insight into the situation in the Netherlands to be able to provide effective legal protection?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).


title: Case T-776/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Medora Therapeutics v EUIPO — Biohealth Italia (LITHOREN)
   (Case T-776/17)
   (2018/C 063/18)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Medora Therapeutics LTD (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Biohealth Italia Srl (Rivoli, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITHOREN’ — EU trade mark No 12 744 901

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 178/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-815/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
   (Case T-815/17)
   (2018/C 063/20)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

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

      Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision C(2014) 8572, reference INEA/ASI/MZ apr Ares(2017), of the European Commission of 11 October 2017.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the connection between the public contracts ‘Engineering and environmental analysis of the new rail link Lovosice-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’, ‘Evaluation of the project of the new rail link Prague-Dresden in the territory of the Czech Republic’ and ‘New railway Litoměřice-Ústí nad Labem-German frontier’.
               According to the contested decision, those public contracts are closely linked together and should have been awarded together as being above the threshold. That conclusion is based on an incorrect legal assessment of the matter; the subjects of those public contracts are mutually distinguishable and their implementation required different professional qualifications.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not contain sufficiently specific reasons on the connection between the public contracts, and in particular

                           —

                           does not state detailed reasons for the technical connection between the public contracts which it incorrectly deduces;

                           —

                           does not state which specific national and European rules, or which specific provisions of those rules, were infringed;

                           —

                           does not state any consideration capable of being reviewed as to what the defendant was guided by and what it took and what it did not take into account in reaching its decision on the actual amount it describes as ineligible.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the fact that the decision on financial aid which the applicant was obliged to comply with states clearly, on page 13, that ‘in the case of the Czech beneficiary, three contracts are planned: for activity No 4 (first part — technical study), for activities Nos 2, 3, 5 and 6, and for activities Nos 1, 4 (second part — economic study) and 7’.

                           —

                           When delimiting the subject of the public contracts, the applicant took those provisions into account, and legitimately expected that the approach provided for by the decision on financial aid would not subsequently be regarded as mistaken.

                           —

                           The contested decision none the less now states, however, that ‘the whole (technical) subject of the public contract could be covered by a single agreement’, which infringes the applicant’s legitimate expectations, which it was able to have, and did have, in the light of the decision on financial aid.


title: Case C-323/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Intervention — Cross-appeal — Admissibility — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions — Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali — Selective nature of the measure — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(ii) — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission
   (Case C-323/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Intervention - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Selective nature of the measure - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(ii) - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))
   (2018/C 063/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, L. Philippou and A. Stratakis, Solicitors)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Grasso, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission, (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal.

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

               4.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-817/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA
   (Case T-817/17)
   (2018/C 063/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Boudewijn Schokker (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and rule:

                           —

                           That the EASA shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 80 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

                           —

                           That the EASA shall pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, seeking to establish that EASA’s authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘the AECC’) committed a number of administrative errors.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the AECC made an unlawful offer of employment to the applicant which, due to that fact, he was unable to accept unconditionally.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the AECC refused to correct that offer of employment, despite the fact that it was manifestly vitiated by illegality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the abrupt withdrawal of the offer of employment by the AECC resulted in the definitive closure of the procedure to recruit the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the AECC failed to have regard to the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure by systematically frustrating all proposals for an out-of-court resolution to the dispute.


title: Case C-369/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Ireland v Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(i) and (iv), and (d) — Limitation — Article 15 — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Ireland v Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission
   (Case C-369/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) and (iv), and (d) - Limitation - Article 15 - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))
   (2018/C 063/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, L. Williams and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: C. Little and C. Waterson, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case T-830/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/20

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission
   (Case T-830/17)
   (2018/C 063/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 February 2017 and, insofar as necessary, the act rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 September 2017;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The contested decision merely cites extracts from case-law and does not set out the list of selection criteria drawn up by the selection board prior to the assessment of the application forms.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant criticises, in that regard, the manner in which the selection board assessed the data entered in the application form.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice. The applicant submits that the selection board failed to cross-match the various sections of the application form in order to decide whether the applicant met one of the conditions for admission to the competition.


title: Case C-373/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Existing or new aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(i) — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-373/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))
   (2018/C 063/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: C. Little and C. Waterson, Solicitors)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-832/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)
   (Case T-832/17)
   (2018/C 063/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘achtung!’ — International registration No 1 297 443

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 in Case R 490/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4);

               —

               amend the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4) in such a way that international registration No 1 297 443 ‘achtung!’ (word/figure) is protected for the European Union;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

   In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement pursuant to Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. The defendant, it submits, erred in law in assessing the distinctive character of the trade mark under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.


title: Case T-822/17: Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)
   (Case T-822/17)
   (2018/C 063/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘iGrill’ — Application for registration No 15 456 726

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 in Case R 579/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Misinterpretation of the legal requirements of articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation no. 2017/1001.


title: Case T-833/17: Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
   (Case T-833/17)
   (2018/C 063/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(2)-(4), 2, 3, and 4 of Decision (EU) 2017/1861 (1) insofar as they concern the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the applicants’ rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU and the obligation to state reasons because it failed to apply the market economy operator (MEO) test and instead applied the Altmark test to the commercial relationship between Cagliari airport and the applicants, including the alleged aid payments, even though these were made on the basis of contracts concluded prior to the adoption of Law 10/2010.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of non-discrimination by not applying the MEO test to the agreements between Cagliari airport and the applicants, on the ground that the Sardinian Region was only a minority shareholder of Cagliari airport.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to identify Cagliari airport as a beneficiary of aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is assumed that Cagliari airport was not a beneficiary of Law 10/2010, the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU because it should have applied the MEO test to the Sardinian Region’s conduct, even under its own assumption that Cagliari airport was a passive ‘vehicle’ for the Region’s funds.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that, even if it is further assumed that Law 10/2010 concerns Services of General Economic Interest and the MEO test is inapplicable, the contested decision would nevertheless violate Article 107(1) TFEU because it erroneously considered payments for marketing services as a hidden subsidy for the operation of aeronautical routes.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU because it failed to show selectivity.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that, even if the Court were to find that aid existed, the Commission infringed Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU by committing a manifest error in its instructions to the Member State regarding the determination of the quantum of recoverable aid.

      (1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1861 of 29 July 2016 on State aid SA33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1).


title: Case C-446/17: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Unfair terms — Rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant — Model rental contract made binding by an act of national legislation — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 1(2) — Inapplicability of that directive)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji
   (Case C-446/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Unfair terms - Rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant - Model rental contract made binding by an act of national legislation - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 1(2) - Inapplicability of that directive))
   (2018/C 063/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Woonhaven Antwerpen

      Defendants: Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to conditions contained in the social rental contract concluded between a recognised social housing association and a tenant, which are determined by national legislation such as Article 11 of the model rental contract annexed to the Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot reglementering van het sociale huurstelsel ter uitvoering van titel VII van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Flemish Government Decree to regulate the social rental system implementing Title VII of the Flemish Housing Code), of 12 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-836/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)
   (Case T-836/17)
   (2018/C 063/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: E. Skovbo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K&L GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘WHISTLER’ — Application for registration No 12 870 648

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 in Case R 311/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reject the opposition in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-615/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp
   (Case C-615/17)
   (2018/C 063/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurowings GmbH

      Defendants: Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

      Question referred

   Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a tour operator who combined the flights for its customer?

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


title: Case T-824/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Action brought on 22 December 2017 — H2O Plus v EUIPO (H 2 O+)
   (Case T-824/17)
   (2018/C 063/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H2O Plus LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and F. Kerl, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H 2 O+’ — International registration No W 1 313 244

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 in Case R 499/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-1/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-1/18)
   (2018/C 063/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2017 in Case No. M.8633 — Lufthansa/Certain Air Berlin Assets, Commission decision pursuant to Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               in the alternative annul paragraph 44(c) of the contested decision, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the power to impose that Lufthansa could acquire aircraft from third-party lessors that these lessors had leased to NIKI or its parent company Air Berlin on the condition that Lufthansa make those aircraft available on market terms to NIKI or an alternative acquirer of NIKI if the NIKI Transaction were to fail for whatever reason (‘the Condition’) under Article 7(3) ECMR (1), because aircraft purchases do not constitute partial implementation.
               The applicant puts forward that the Commission lacked any power under Article 7(3) of the ECMR to impose the Condition, as Lufthansa’s purchase of aircraft from third parties was unrelated to the NIKI Transaction (2) and did not constitute a partial ‘implementation’ of the planned acquisition of NIKI that would have required a derogation from the stand-still provision in Article 7(1) of the ECMR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by requiring Lufthansa to facilitate the sale of NIKI to another buyer, the Condition exceeds the permissible scope of Article 7(3) ECMR and thereby infringes the principle of proportionality.
               According to the applicant, conditions under Article 7(3) ECMR are appropriate only to the extent they are needed in a given case to ensure that undue impact on the target’s market conduct and the implementing steps for a notified transaction can be reversed in order to restore the status quo ante.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the vague standard of ‘market terms’ and the lack of any procedural safeguard or limiting principles by design operates against Lufthansa and thus breaches the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and Lufthansa’s right to property and freedom to conduct business.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning with respect to the number of aircraft covered.
               Lufthansa submits that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons because its interpretation of its own decision creates fundamental uncertainty over the scope of the Condition, which is highly prejudicial to Lufthansa’s ability to seek judicial protection, and the Court’s ability to perform its duty of judicial review.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s right to be heard was breached.
               Lufthansa submits that the Commission did not respect Lufthansa’s right to be heard and ignored the provisional procedure provided for in Article 18 ECMR and Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 802/2004 (3) by adopting the contested decision as ‘final’ without having afforded Lufthansa an opportunity to make known its views on the Condition and any alleged competitive harm the Condition was supposed to remedy, neither before (Article 18(1) ECMR) nor after (Article 18(2) ECMR) the adoption of the Decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2004, L 24, p. 1.

      (2)  in the context of Lufthansa’s proposed acquisition of the shares of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH (‘NIKI’) and Luftfahrtgesellschaft Walter mbH (‘LGW’) from Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (‘Air Berlin’) (the ‘Transaction’) (in relation to NIKI alone, the ‘NIKI Transaction’).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004, L 133, p. 1).


title: Case T-827/17: Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Aeris Invest v ECB

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Aeris Invest v ECB
   (Case T-827/17)
   (2018/C 063/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decisions of the ECB LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 of 7 November 2017; and

               —

               Order the ECB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In accordance with Article 263 TFEU and Article 8(3) of the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3), this action seeks annulment of the Decisions of the European Central Bank LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 of 7 November 2017 relating to confirmatory requests for access to ECB documents.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies upon four pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: Decisions LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 infringe Article 4(1)(c) of the Access Decision inasmuch as they deny the applicant access to information on the grounds that the documents are claimed to be, fully or in part, protected by a general presumption of non-accessibility because they are confidential documents covered by the principle of professional secrecy applicable to the institutions.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Decision LS/PT/17/406 infringes the second and sixth indents of Article 4(1)(a) of the Access Decision inasmuch as it states that disclosure of Banco Popular’s use of ELA (emergency liquidity assistance) in the days preceding its resolution and of information regarding its liquidity situation and capital ratios could in fact specifically sap the efficiency of the monetary policy and financial stability of the Union or of a Member State.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Decision LS/PT/17/406 and Decision LS/MD/17/419 infringe the first indent of Article 4(2) of the Access Decision by stating that the documents and information requested are commercially sensitive material that could affect the commercial interests of the Banco Popular and Banco Santander.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: the ECB has infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by denying the applicant access to the documents upon which the ECB based its decision to declare the resolution of the Banco Popular.


title: Case T-2/18: Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

text:
               19.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)
   (Case T-2/18)
   (2018/C 063/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AXA Banque SA (Fontenay sous Bois, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘boon.’ — Application for registration No 14 672 562

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 706/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition brought by AXA Banque, société anonyme, and grant the application for registration of the trade mark applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, and extend this order to AXA Banque, société anonyme, if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/15

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-16/17)
   (2018/C 67/15)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision, as referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/11

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-12/17)
   (2018/C 67/11)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its legal order.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/16

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-17/17)
   (2018/C 67/16)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and in any event by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that act, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               On 18 January 2017 ESA delivered a reasoned opinion in which it maintained the conclusion that by failing to take measures to ensure implementation of the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers) and/or to notify the Authority thereof, Iceland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 SCA, ESA required Iceland to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months following the notification; that is, no later than 18 March 2017.

               —

               The Icelandic Government replied to the Authority’s reasoned opinion on 13 February 2017. In its reply, the Icelandic Government referred to its reply to the letter of formal notice, and stated that it aimed to submit the bill implementing the Act into Icelandic law to the Parliament before 1 April 2017.

               —

               The Authority received no further information on implementation until it received a Form 1, dated 30 November 2017. In the Form 1, the Icelandic Government indicated that it had fully implemented the Act into Icelandic law. Although a date for implementation was not indicated, the Icelandic Government attached to the Form 1 a copy of what it stated was an implementing measure dated 30 October 2014: the Icelandic Act No 105/2014 on the Free Right to Employment and Residence within the European Economic Area (Act No 105/2014).

               —

               By email of 4 December 2017, ESA wrote to the Icelandic Ministry of Welfare, asking for an explanation of whether, in the light of the replies to the letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion, the notification of Act No 105/2014 as an implementing measure was a mistake. The Ministry replied by email on 7 December 2017, stating that in its view Act No 105/2014 fully implements the Directive, and offering as an explanation for the previous line of replies that ‘it was thought more transparent to have a special clause in [Act No 105/2014] informing that the Act implements the Directive’ and that this would be added by way of the bill proposed in April 2017.

               —

               On 19 December 2017, having undertaken an assessment of whether then notified measures could be said to have implemented the Act, the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided to bring the matter before the Court pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 SCA.


               22.2.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 67/12

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-13/17)
   (2018/C 67/12)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-336/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) — Article 22(3) — Annex XI — Concentration of particulate matter PM10 in ambient air — Exceedance of limit values in certain zones and agglomerations — Article 23(1) — Air quality plans — Exceedance period ‘as short as possible’ — Absence of appropriate actions in ambient air quality protection programmes — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-336/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) - Article 22(3) - Annex XI - Concentration of particulate matter PM10 in ambient air - Exceedance of limit values in certain zones and agglomerations - Article 23(1) - Air quality plans - Exceedance period ‘as short as possible’ - Absence of appropriate actions in ambient air quality protection programmes - Incorrect transposition))
   (2018/C 134/07)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, K. Petersen and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Krawczyk and K. Majcher, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 13(1), in conjunction with Annex XI, the second subparagraph of Article 23(1), and Article 22(3) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, for the following reasons:

                           —

                           since 2007 and up to 2015 inclusive, the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations were exceeded in 35 zones for the assessment and management of ambient air quality and the annual limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations were exceeded in 9 zones for the assessment and management of ambient air quality;

                           —

                           no appropriate measures have been incorporated in ambient air quality programmes to ensure that the exceedance period of particulate matter PM10 concentrations limit values is kept as short as possible;

                           —

                           the daily limit values for particulate matter PM10 concentrations in ambient air, increased by the margin of tolerance, were exceeded from 1 January 2010 to 10 June 2011 in the Radom, Pruszków-Żyrardów, Kędzierzyn-Koźle zones, as well as from 1 January 2011 to 10 June 2011 in the Ostrów-Kępno zone; and

                           —

                           the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 was not correctly implemented.

               2.

               The Republic of Poland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case T-138/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/30

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission
   (Case T-138/18)
   (2018/C 190/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order OLAF to produce in full and complete form the note of 19 March 2003 produced in the case of Franchet and Byk v Commission (T-48/05) before the General Court of the European Union;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 1 102 291,68 (one million one hundred and two thousand two hundred and ninety-one euros and sixty-eight cents) as compensation for the losses suffered, to be adjusted if necessary, divided as follows:

                           —

                           in respect of the non-material harm suffered by reason of never having [been] heard as regards the facts which gave rise to the charges against him, the sum of EUR 60 000;

                           —

                           in respect of the losses suffered as a result of the unlawful, unjustified and disproportionate conduct of the European Commission in pursuing procedures without any factual ground or material element:

                                       —

                                       the sum of EUR 39 293,38 in respect of material harm, namely lawyers’ fees;

                                       —

                                       the sum of EUR 872,74 in respect of material harm, namely travel expenses;

                                       —

                                       the sum of EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material harm, namely the undeniable damage caused to his reputation and honour;

                                       —

                                       the sum of EUR 500 000 as compensation for the physical and mental harm adversely affecting his state of health;

                                       —

                                       the sum of EUR 2 125,56 in respect of material harm, namely examination and medical costs.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 in respect of non-recoverable costs and all the costs of the action, to be adjusted if necessary.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the European Commission’s conduct and its serious wrongdoing, in that it failed to observe, firstly, the principle of sound administration; secondly, the duty of care and, thirdly, the principles of the rights of the defence by infringing Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case C-194/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Jadran Dodič v BANKA KOPER, ALTA INVEST

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Jadran Dodič v BANKA KOPER, ALTA INVEST
   (Case C-194/18)
   (2018/C 190/13)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Jadran Dodič

      Respondents: BANKA KOPER, ALTA INVEST

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a transfer, such as that which took place in the circumstances of the present case, relating to financial instruments and other client assets (specifically, transferable securities), the accounts relating to clients’ intangible debt securities and other financial and ancillary services, as well as the records, must be deemed to be a legal transfer of an undertaking or of part of an undertaking, bearing in mind that, after the first respondent ceased to engage in business as a stock-exchange intermediary, the decision whether provision of such services was to be entrusted to the second defendant was, ultimately, a matter for the clients?

               2.

               In the circumstances described above, is the number of clients who, following the cessation of the first respondent’s activities as a stock-exchange intermediary, now use the second respondent for the provision of those services, relevant?

               3.

               Is the fact that the first respondent continues to provide services to the clients as a dependant financial promotion company and, in performing that role, cooperates with the second respondent, relevant in any way for the purpose of determining whether there was a transfer of a business or an undertaking?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16).


title: Case T-25/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Bernhard Rintisch v EUIPO, Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark PROTICURD — Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS — Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power — Relative ground for refusal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Goods not similar — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               4.6.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2018 — Bernhard Rintisch v EUIPO, Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
   (Case T-25/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark PROTICURD - Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS - Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power - Relative ground for refusal - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Goods not similar - No likelihood of confusion))
   (2018/C 190/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé-sur-Vire, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 (Case R 247/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


201805250201897572018/C 200/221952017CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417171821Joined Cases C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17) v TUIfly GmbH (References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ — ‘Wildcat strike’)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1710120180417EN0022171182Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17) v TUIfly GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ — ‘Wildcat strike’)’2018/C 200/22Language of the case: German
      Referring courts

   Amtsgericht Hannover, Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Helga Krüsemann and Others (C-195/17), Thomas Neufeldt and Others (C-197/17), Ivan Wallmann (C-198/17), Rita Hoffmeyer (C-199/17), Rudolf Meyer (C-199/17), Susanne de Winder (C-200/17), Holger Schlosser (C-201/17), Nicole Schlosser (C-201/17), Peter Rebbe and Others (C-202/17), Eberhard Schmeer (C-203/17), Brigitte Wittmann (C-226/17), Reinhard Wittmann (C-228/17), Regina Lorenz (C-254/17), Prisca Sprecher (C-254/17), Margarethe Yüce and Others (Case C-274/17), Friedemann Schoen (C-275/17), Brigitta Schoen (C-275/17), Susanne Meyer and Others (Case C-278/17), Thomas Kiehl (C-279/17), Ralph Eßer (C-280/17), Thomas Schmidt (C-281/17), Werner Ansorge (C-282/17), Herbert Blesgen (C-283/17), Simone Künnecke and Others (Case C-284/17), Marta Gentile (C-285/17), Marcel Gentile (C-285/17), Gabriele Ossenbeck (C-286/17), Angelina Fell and Others (Case C-290/17), Helga Jordan-Grompe and Others (Case C-291/17), EUflight.de GmbH (C-292/17)

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

      OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

      OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

      OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

      OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


201806150351954872018/C 231/172352018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180328141411Case C-235/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1410120180328EN0017141141Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH
   (Case C-235/18)2018/C 231/17Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

      Other party to the proceedings: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (now the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie)

      Question referred

   Does the concept referred to in Article 135(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (
         1
      ) include transactions consisting in the provision of fuel cards and in negotiating, financing and accounting for the purchase of fuel using those cards, or can such complex transactions be considered to be chain transactions the primary purpose of which is the supply of fuel?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201806150621955132018/C 231/572912018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507454511Case T-291/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN4510120180507EN0057451451Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Biedermann Technologies v EUIPO (Compliant Constructs)
   (Case T-291/18)2018/C 231/57Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Biedermann Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Donaueschingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Compliant Constructs’ — Application for registration No 16 125 461

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 in Case R 1626/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision and order registration;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

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

            —

            Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201806150691955302018/C 231/31232017TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516252622Case T-23/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Barnett v EESC (Civil service — Officials — Retirement pension — Early retirement without reduction of pension rights — Facility formerly provided for in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Compliance with an annulling judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal — Liability)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2520120180516EN0031252262Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Barnett v EESC
   (Case T-23/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — Officials — Retirement pension — Early retirement without reduction of pension rights — Facility formerly provided for in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Compliance with an annulling judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal — Liability)’2018/C 231/31Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment of the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC (F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107), refusing to grant the applicant early retirement without reduction of pension rights and, secondarily, compensation for the damage which she claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Ms Inge Barnett to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


201808030842050892018/C 294/683802018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180625545521Case T-380/18: Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5410120180625EN0068541552Action brought on 25 June 2018 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)
   (Case T-380/18)2018/C 294/68Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INTAS — Application for registration No 14 153 811

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 in Case R 815/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            in the alternative, alter the contested decision to the state that the opposition shall be remitted to the Opposition Division for it to reconsider the opposition;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board;

            —

            in the alternative, if the other party before the Board intervenes, then order EUIPO and the intervener jointly and severally to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application and the costs before the Board.

      Plea in law

            —

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


201808030132050022018/C 294/213412018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180524161611Case C-341/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v J. and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1610120180524EN0021161161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v J. and Others
   (Case C-341/18)2018/C 294/21Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Defendant: J. and Others

      Other parties: C. and H. and Others

      Question referred

   Must Article 11(1) of Regulation 2016/399 (
         1
      ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who previously entered the Schengen area, for example through an international airport, exits within the meaning of the Schengen Borders Code as soon as he, as a seafarer, signs on with a seagoing vessel that is already berthed in a seaport which is an external border, irrespective of whether, and if so when, he will leave that seaport with that ship? Or, in order for there to be an exit, must it first be established that the seafarer will leave the seaport with the seagoing vessel concerned, and if so, does a deadline apply within which the departure must take place and at what time must the exit stamp then be applied? Or should a different time, whether or not under other conditions, be equated with ‘exit’?
   (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).