title: Case C-674/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — EM v TMD Friction GmbH

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — EM v TMD Friction GmbH
      (Case C-674/18)
      (2019/C 103/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: EM

         Defendant: TMD Friction GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) 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 allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

                  2.

                  If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer?

                  3.

                  If the second question referred is answered in the negative:
                  Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that

                              —

                              the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business,

                              —

                              the transferee of the business is liable for future pension entitlements to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened,

                              —

                              in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, and

                              —

                              the employee may assert, in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor, the value of the part of the future pension entitlements that was acquired before the insolvency proceedings had been opened?

                  4.

                  If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time?

                  5.

                  If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the obligation to guarantee pension entitlements that were not yet statutorily vested under national law when the insolvency proceedings were opened and that are only statutorily vested in the first place because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency?

                  6.

                  If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employee be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the employee will receive at least half of the benefits that will arise from his acquired pension rights?

                  7.

                  If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC?

                  8.

                  If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate?

                  9.

                  If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State?

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.


title: Case C-675/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2018 — FL v TMD Friction EsCo GmbH
      (Case C-675/18)
      (2019/C 103/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: FL

         Defendant: TMD Friction EsCo GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) 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 allow — in the event of a transfer of a business after the opening of insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business under national law, which, in principle, also requires the application of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes — a restriction to the effect that the transferee is not liable for pension entitlements based on periods of service completed prior to the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

                  2.

                  If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  In the event of a transfer of business after insolvency proceedings regarding the assets of the transferor of the business have been opened, are the measures necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes based on the level of protection required by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer?

                  3.

                  If the second question referred is answered in the negative:
                  Is Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to mean that the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes have been taken if the national law provides that

                              —

                              the obligation to provide the employee covered by the transfer of a business in insolvency proceedings with old-age benefits under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes in the future is transferred to the transferee of the business,

                              —

                              the transferee of the business is liable for pension entitlements, the amount of which is determined, inter alia, on the basis of the length of service and the remuneration upon the occurrence of the covered event, to the extent that they are based on periods of service completed after insolvency proceedings are opened,

                              —

                              in that case, the insolvency insurance institution designated under national law does not have to assume responsibility for the part of the pension entitlements accrued before the insolvency proceedings were opened to the extent the amount of those entitlements is calculated on the basis of the remuneration received by the employee as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened, and

                              —

                              neither the transferee nor the insolvency insurance institution is liable for the increases in the pension entitlements that arise due to increases in remuneration after the insolvency proceedings have been opened, but in respect of periods of service completed before that point in time,

                              —

                              the employee may assert, however, this difference in the value of his entitlements in the insolvency proceedings of the transferor?

                  4.

                  If, in the event of a transfer of a business, the national law also requires the application of Article 3 and Article 4 of Directive 2001/23/EC during insolvency proceedings, is Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23/EC applicable to employees’ pension entitlements under supplementary company or intercompany pension schemes that did arise before the insolvency proceedings had been opened, but do not lead to benefit entitlements on the part of the employee until the occurrence of the covered event and therefore not until a later point in time?

                  5.

                  If the second or the fourth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Does the minimum level of protection to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer also cover the part of the pension entitlements accrued as at the date on which the insolvency proceedings were opened because the employment relationship is not terminated in connection with the insolvency?

                  6.

                  If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Under what circumstances can a former employee’s losses suffered in respect of occupational old-age pension benefits as a result of the insolvency of the employer be regarded as manifestly disproportionate and therefore oblige the Member States to ensure a minimum degree of protection against such losses pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC, even though the former employee receives at least half of the benefits that arise from his acquired pension rights?

                  7.

                  If the fifth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Is the protection for employees’ pension entitlements that is necessary pursuant to Article 3(4)(b) of Directive 2001/23/EC or Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/94/EC — and is equivalent to that of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC — also accorded if it does not arise from national law, but rather only from direct application of Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC?

                  8.

                  If the seventh question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Does Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC also have direct effect, such that it can be asserted before the national court by an individual employee if, although he receives at least half of the benefits arising out of his accrued pension rights, his losses suffered as a result of the insolvency of the employer are nevertheless to be regarded as disproportionate?

                  9.

                  If the eighth question referred is answered in the affirmative:
                  Is an institution organised under private law that the Member State has designated — in a manner that is binding on employers — as an insolvency insurance institution for occupational pensions that is subject to State supervision of financial services and levies the contributions required for insolvency insurance from employers under public law, and, like an authority, can establish the conditions for enforcement by way of an administrative act, a public body of the Member State?

         (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.


title: Case C-719/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Vivendi SA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
      (Case C-719/18)
      (2019/C 103/10)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vivendi SA

         Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  While Member States have the ability to investigate when undertakings have a dominant position (and to impose specific obligations on those undertakings as a result), is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005, in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested decision, according to which ‘undertakings, including through subsidiaries or affiliates, whose revenues in the electronic communications sector, as defined by Article 18 of Legislative Decree No 259 of 1 August 2003, exceed 40 per cent of the total revenues in that sector, may not earn, within the Integrated Communications System, revenues exceeding 10 per cent of that system’ incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU?; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, in so far as — through reference to Article 18 of the Codice delle comunicazioni elettroniche (Electronic Communications Code), it restricts the sector in question to the markets susceptible to ex ante regulation, regardless of what commonly happens, which is that information (the pluralism of which the rule is designed to protect) is increasingly conveyed by the use of the Internet, personal computers and mobile telephony, which is sufficient to make it unreasonable to exclude from that sector, in particular, retail mobile telephony services, simply because they operate completely competitively; is Article 43(11) of Legislative Decree No 177 of 31 July 2005 incompatible with EU law and, in particular, with the principle of free movement of capital laid down in Article 63 TFEU, taking into account the fact that the Authority has defined the boundaries of the electronic communications sector, for the purposes of applying Article 43(11) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005] in the course of the present proceedings, by taking into consideration only the markets where at least one analysis has been carried out since the entry into force of the Electronic Communications Code, that is, from 2003 to date, and with revenues resulting from the last useful assessment, carried out in 2015?

                  2.

                  Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) [on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services] to safeguard pluralism and freedom of expression, together with the EU law principle of proportionality, preclude the application of national legislation concerning public broadcasting and audiovisual media services, such as that of Italy, contained in Article 43(11) and (14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005], according to which the revenues relevant for determining the second threshold of 10 % can also be applied to undertakings that are not subsidiaries or under a dominant influence, but are even merely ‘affiliates’ within the meaning of Article 2359 of the Codice Civile (Civil Code) (referred to in Article 43(14) [of Legislative Decree No 177/2005]), even if it is not possible to exert any influence on the information being broadcast by those undertakings?

                  3.

                  Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [and] Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, together with the principles on safeguarding pluralism of information sources and competition in the broadcasting sector laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU (2) concerning audiovisual media services and in Directive 2002/21/EC, preclude national legislation such as Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which in Article 43(9) and (11) thereof sets very different thresholds (20 % and 10 % respectively) for ‘persons required to be entered in the Register of Communications Operators established under Article 1(6)(a)(5) of Law No 249 of 31 July 1997’ (that is, persons who have received a concession or authorisation under the legislation in force, from the Authority or from other competent administrative authorities, and concessionaires of advertising, however transmitted, publishers, and so on, referred to in Article 43(9)) and for undertakings operating in the electronic communications sector, as defined above (covered by Article 43(11))?

         (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

         (2)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).


title: Case C-760/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece) lodged on 4 December 2018 — M.V. and Others v Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece) lodged on 4 December 2018 — M.V. and Others v Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos
      (Case C-760/18)
      (2019/C 103/11)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Monomeles Protodikeio Lasithiou (Greece)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: M.V. and Others

         Defendant: Local Authority Municipality of Agios Nikolaos

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Would an interpretation of the provisions of national law enacted for the purpose of transposing into national law the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, as set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) that excluded the automatic extension of fixed-term employment contracts of local authority cleansing department workers from the definition of ‘successive’ fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clauses 1 and 5(2) of that framework agreement, pursuant to an express legislative provision of national law such as that enacted in Article 167 of Law 4099/2012, on the ground that it involves the extension of an existing employment contract rather than the conclusion in writing of a new fixed-term employment contract, undermine the purpose and the practical effect of that framework agreement?

                  2.

                  Where a practice is enacted and applied for the employment of local authority cleansing department workers that is contrary to the measures, to prevent the abuse that may arise from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, provided for under the measure harmonising national legislation with clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, would the obligation incumbent upon a national court to interpret national law in conformity with EU law extend to the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, as a pre-existing and still applicable equivalent legal measure, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, that would allow the correct legal classification of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleansing departments as employment contracts of indefinite duration?

                  3.

                  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, would a provision of constitutional status such as that set out in Article 103(7) and (8) of the Greek Constitution, as revised in 2001, absolutely prohibiting the public sector from converting fixed-term employment contracts, concluded when the above provision was applicable, to contracts of indefinite duration, constitute an excessive restriction upon the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, by making it impossible to apply a pre-existing equivalent and still applicable legal measure of national law within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920, and by preventing the possibility of successive fixed-term employment contracts used to cover the fixed and permanent needs of local authority cleaning departments from being re-classified as contracts of indefinite duration following a correct classification of the lawful relationship during court proceedings, even if they cover fixed and permanent needs?


title: Case C-827/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND
      (Case C-827/18)
      (2019/C 103/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Kamenz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: MC

         Defendant: ND

         Question referred

      Is the disputed principal claim for EUR 535, based on a notarial purchase contract of 10 February 2016 for the purchase of a residential apartment located in Großröhrsdorf, falling under the jurisdiction of the Local Court, Kamenz, which, derived specifically from the transfer of possession and enjoyment to the applicant on 1 April 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the notarial contract, was still effected by means of the defendant’s tenant’s rental payment on 1 April 2016 in respect of the residential apartment […] to be regarded as proceedings within the meaning of Article 22 of the Lugano Convention, (1) which have as their object the payment in respect of a right in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, or is the international jurisdiction of a German court to be derived from another provision of the Lugano Convention, or [is] the international jurisdiction of the Swiss court which has jurisdiction in respect of the defendant’s domicile justified (Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 5 No 1 of the Lugano Convention)?

         (1)  Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (‘Lugano II Convention’) (OJ 2009 L 147, p. 5).


title: Case C-17/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures
      (Case C-17/19)
      (2019/C 103/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Bouygues travaux publics, Elco construct Bucarest, Welbond armatures

         Question referred

      Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, (1) in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, (3) and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (4) be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 certificate issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, or an A1 certificate issued pursuant to Article 13 (1) of Regulation No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, binds the courts of the Member State in which the work is carried out when it comes to determining the legislation applicable, not only as regards the social security system but also as regards labour law, where such legislation defines the obligations of employers and the rights of employees, so that, having heard the arguments of the parties, those courts can disregard the above-mentioned certificates only if, on the basis of an assessment of specific evidence, collected in the course of the judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that the certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on and which the issuing institution failed to take into account, the said courts identify, within a reasonable timeframe, fraud, comprised, as regards its objective element, by the failure to meet the conditions laid down in either of the aforementioned provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and, as regards its subjective element, by the intention of the accused person to evade or circumvent the conditions for the issue of that certificate, in order to obtain the advantages attaching thereto?

         (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 160.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1).

         (4)  OJ 2004 L 284, p. 1


title: Case C-19/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation
      (Case C-19/19)
      (2019/C 103/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: État belge

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Pantochim SA, in liquidation

         Questions referred

                  —

                  Must the provision according to which the claim in respect of which a request for recovery has been made ‘shall be treated as a claim of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated’, as provided for in [the second paragraph of] Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (1) which replaces Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (2) be understood as meaning that the claim of the requesting State is to be treated as being a claim of the requested State, with the result that the claim of the requesting State acquires the status of a claim of the requested State?

                  —

                  Must the term ‘privilege’ referred to in Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008, and, before codification, in Article 10 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976, be understood as the preferential right attached to the claim which confers on it a right of priority over other claims in the event of concurrence, or as any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrence, in the preferential payment of the claim?

                  —

                  Must the option available to the tax authority to carry out, under the conditions laid down by Article 334 of the Programme-Law of 27 November 2004, a set-off in the event of concurrence be regarded as a privilege within the meaning of Article 10 of the abovementioned directives?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 150, p. 28.

         (2)  OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18. Directive 2008/55/EC indicates (footnote 3) that the original title of Directive 76/308/EEC was amended by Directive 79/1071/EEC (OJ L 331, p. 10), Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and Directive 2001/44/EC (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).


title: Case C-29/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2019 — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2019 — ZP v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
      (Case C-29/19)
      (2019/C 103/15)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundessozialgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: ZP

         Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation on unemployment benefits administered by the competent institution, that salary cannot be taken into account due to insufficient duration of receipt and a notional assessment of the benefits is provided for as an alternative?

                  2.

                  Is Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(2), of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, when a worker becomes unemployed, the competent institution of the Member State of residence must base the calculation of the benefits on the ‘salary’ that the person concerned ‘received’ in respect of his/her last activity as an employed person in the territory of that institution even in the case where, under the national legislation administered by the competent institution, that salary may not be included as a basis for calculating the benefits in the reference period because it was not processed timeously and a notional assessment of the benefit is provided for as an alternative?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case C-30/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 10 January 2019 — Diskrimineringsombudsmannen v Braathens Regional Aviation AB
      (Case C-30/19)
      (2019/C 103/16)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta domstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Diskrimineringsombudsmannen

         Opposing party: Braathens Regional Aviation AB

         Question referred

      In a case concerning an infringement of a prohibition laid down in Directive 2000/43/EC (1) where the person wronged claims compensation for discrimination, must a Member State, if so requested by the person wronged, always examine whether discrimination has occurred — and where appropriate conclude that that was the case — regardless of whether the person accused of discrimination has or has not admitted that discrimination has occurred, in order for the requirement in Article 15 for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions to be regarded as satisfied?

         (1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).


title: Case C-35/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 January 2019 — BU v État belge

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 21 January 2019 — BU v État belge
      (Case C-35/19)
      (2019/C 103/17)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: BU

         Defendant: État belge

         Question referred

      Does Article 38 § 1(4) of the C.I.R./92 infringe Article 45 et seq. (principle of free movement of workers) and Article 56 et seq. (principle of freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as it exempts disability allowances from tax only if those allowances are paid by the State Treasury, that is to say, by the Belgian State, in accordance with Belgian legislation, thereby giving rise to discrimination between taxpayers resident in Belgium who receive disability allowances paid by the Belgian State under Belgian legislation, which are exempt from tax, and taxpayers resident in Belgium who receive allowances intended to compensate for a disability paid by another Member State of the European Union, which are not exempt from tax?


title: Case C-46/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-316/14: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) v Council

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/17

      Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-316/14: Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) v Council
      (Case C-46/19 P)
      (2019/C 103/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, S. Van Overmeire, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the contested judgment of the General Court;

                  —

                  give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss PKK's application; and

                  —

                  order the PKK to pay the costs of the Council arising from the present appeal and from Case T-316/14.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Council submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points:

                  —

                  first plea: the General Court wrongly characterised the contested decisions as purely Article 1(6) decisions (1);

                  —

                  second plea: the General Court wrongly concluded that the U.S. decisions cannot serve as a basis for the initial listing;

                  —

                  third plea: the General Court wrongly found that the Council had failed to explain why it considered the U.S. decisions and the Order of the UK Home Secretary to be a decision of a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of CP931;

                  —

                  fourth plea: the General Court wrongly applied the Court of Justice's LTTE (2) judgment, point 55, to the case at hand;

                  —

                  fifth plea: the General Court wrongly applied LTTE, point 71 to the case at hand;

                  —

                  sixth plea: the General Court wrongly applied Article 1(4) of CP931 and point 55 of the LTTE judgment;

                  —

                  seventh plea: the General Court wrongly held that the Council could not respond to the PKK's letter in its own letter of 27 March 2015.

         (1)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001, L 344, p. 93).

         (2)  Case C-599/14 P, Council v. LTTE, EU:C2017:583


title: Case C-69/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Credito Fondiario SpA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 November 2018 in Case T-661/16, Credito Fondiario v SRB

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/18

      Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Credito Fondiario SpA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 November 2018 in Case T-661/16, Credito Fondiario v SRB

      (Case C-69/19 P)
      (2019/C 103/19)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Credito Fondiario SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, F. Iacovone, S. Frazzani and A. Neri, avvocati)

         Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

         Interveners: Italian Republic, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

                  —

                  order the SRB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and those of the proceedings in Case T-661/16;

                  —

                  in the alternative, set aside the order under appeal in so far as it orders Credito Fondiario to pay the costs of the SRB, and make an equitable decision as to the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant claims that the order under appeal is vitiated by numerous errors of law that amount to both flaws in the judicial reasoning and procedural defects.
      I.   Incorrect legal characterisation of the facts. Failure to state reasons.

      The General Court was wrong to characterise the facts of the case on the basis of the case-law which provides that, in the absence of publication or notification, the period for bringing an action starts to run from the point in time at which the person concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the decision, provided that he requested the full text thereof within a reasonable period.
      In particular, the General Court erred in taking the view that the appellant had acquired knowledge of the two SRB decisions by means of the two notes from the Banca d’Italia of 3 May and 27 May 2016. In addition, the General Court was wrong to find that the appellant did not take steps within a reasonable period to obtain the two decisions of the SRB. The General Court failed to have due regard for the context of legal uncertainty. As a result, the General Court erred in finding that the action had been brought out of time in the light of the specific circumstances of the case.
      II.   Incorrect interpretation and application of the case-law on ‘reasonable period’

      The General Court’s finding that the action had been brought out of time is also vitiated by misinterpretation (and consequent misapplication to the case in question) of the case-law on the reasonable duration of the period within which the interested party must take steps to obtain the decision to be contested.
      III.   Infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence. Infringement and misapplication of Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

      Despite having ordered numerous measures of inquiry and measures of organisation of procedure, the General Court did not invite the parties to comment on the matter of whether the action had been brought in time. The General Court addressed the issue of the action being brought out of time for the first time in the order, when it used it as the basis for its decision to dismiss the action, without having placed the parties — in particular the appellant — in a position to make submissions and to be heard on that point.
      In addition, the General Court adopted the order under Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, even though it was clear, for a variety of reasons, that the ground of inadmissibility on which the order for dismissal was based was not manifest.
      The General Court thus breached the appellant’s rights of defence.
      IV.   Incorrect assessment of the inadmissibility of the application made under Article 277 TFEU

      The errors in the assessments by which the General Court established the inadmissibility of the application for annulment automatically render the order unlawful in so far as the General Court found the appellant’s application for a declaration of the unlawful nature of Regulation 2015/63 (1) to be inadmissible. The General Court found that the second request was necessarily ancillary to the principal request for annulment, and that, therefore, the manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment automatically determined the manifest inadmissibility of the application for a declaration of the unlawful nature of Regulation 2015/63.
      V.   Incorrect assessment regarding the order as to costs. Infringement and misapplication of Articles 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure

      In the alternative, the appellant challenges the order in so far as the General Court ordered it to pay the costs incurred by the SRB.
      According to the appellant, equity required the General Court to apply Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure and to apportion the legal costs in accordance with Article 135(1) thereof, or, as appropriate, to order the SRB to pay at least part of the costs incurred by the appellant, in accordance with Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).


title: Case C-157/17: Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV
      (Case C-157/17) (1)

      (2019/C 103/20)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case C-76/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
      (Case C-76/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/21)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-77/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
      (Case C-77/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/22)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-79/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/21

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: French Republic
      (Case C-79/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/23)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-487/18: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/21

      Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
      (Case C-487/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/25)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.


title: Case C-685/18: Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/21

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality v ND
      (Case C-685/18) (1)

      (2019/C 103/26)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.


title: Case T-177/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078)) (New varieties of plants — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) — Designation of another examination office — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
      (Case T-177/16) (1)

      ((New varieties of plants - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78 (11078) - Designation of another examination office - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2019/C 103/27)
      Language of the case: German.

         Parties

         Applicant: Mema GmbH LG (Terlan, Italy) (represented by B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by M. Ekvad, F. Mattina, O. Lamberti and U. Braun-Mlodecka, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 15 December 2015 (Case A 001/2015) concerning an application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety Braeburn 78;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders the CPVO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-487/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Pensions — 2008 Reform — Increase in the rate of contributions — Subsequent pay slips — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
      (Case T-487/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - EIB staff - Pensions - 2008 Reform - Increase in the rate of contributions - Subsequent pay slips - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 103/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), and the 33 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli and subsequently by T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and J. Klein, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the ‘decisions’ of the EIB, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for February 2011, to increase the rate of their contributions to the pension scheme from 9 % to 10 % and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay a symbolic EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the other staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) listed in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-58/11 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on1.9.2016).


title: Case T-11/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council (Civil service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Placing official on leave in the interests of the service — Equal treatment — Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age — Manifest error of assessment — Right to be heard — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — RK v Council
      (Case T-11/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Placing official on leave in the interests of the service - Equal treatment - Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility))
      (2019/C 103/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

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

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by A. Troupiotis and J. A. Steele, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the undated decision of the Council to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service on the basis of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 27 September 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant and, secondly, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                  Orders RK to bear 80 % of her own costs.

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and 20 % of the costs incurred by RK.

                  4.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case T-117/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council (Public service contracts — Negotiated procedure — Most economically advantageous tender — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Discretion of a contracting authority — Lawfulness of the evaluation method — Principle of sound financial management)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council
      (Case T-117/17) (1)

      ((Public service contracts - Negotiated procedure - Most economically advantageous tender - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Discretion of a contracting authority - Lawfulness of the evaluation method - Principle of sound financial management))
      (2019/C 103/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and S. Cholakova, acting as Agents, and by P. de Bandt, P. Teerlinck and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 23 December 2016 to award the framework contract for the provision of cybersecurity services [confidential], to another tenderer.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                  Orders Proximus SA/NV to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-166/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission
      (Case T-166/17) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))
      (2019/C 103/31)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Katsimerou, O. Verheecke and J. Estrada de Solà, and subsequently A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615291 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 197 799,52 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Sensation is, in the amount of EUR 179 101,35, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay to Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA), first, the sum of EUR 19 522,57 corresponding to eligible staff costs, plus related indirect costs and delayed interest on that sum at the rate of 3,50 % from 12 May 2017 until full payment of that sum, second, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 2 950 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until 28 November 2017 and, third, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 8 988,21 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until the payment of that sum on 2 October 2017;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders EKETA to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the Commission’s costs, with the latter bearing one tenth of its costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-198/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission
      (Case T-198/17) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Actibio contract concluded within the context of the seventh framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))
      (2019/C 103/32)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615335 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse the sum of EUR 38 241 of the payment received for a study on the Actibio project is unfounded in the amount of EUR 9 353,56, and, second, that that sum corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-215/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR — Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR)
      (Case T-215/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR - Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pear Technologies Ltd (Macao, China) (represented by: J. Coldham, Solicitor, and E. Himsworth QC)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Technologies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies Ltd;

                  3.

                  Orders Apple Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-287/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SWEMAC — Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB — Relative ground for refusal — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — SWEMAC Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)
      (Case T-287/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SWEMAC - Earlier national company name or trade name SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB - Relative ground for refusal - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
      (2019/C 103/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB (Täby, Sweden) (represented by: P. Jonsell, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 (Case R 3000/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Swemac Innovation and SWEMAC Medical Appliances.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Swemac Innovation AB to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by SWEMAC Medical Appliances AB for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-290/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality — Principle of proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle ne bis in idem)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 –Stavytskyi v Council
      (Case T-290/17) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality - Principle of proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle ne bis in idem))
      (2019/C 103/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Mr Edward Stavytskyi’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-461/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Head of Unit post — Inclusion on the reserve list — Acceptance of the offer of employment — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Conditions of employment — Character references — Article 12 of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Processing of personal data — Right to be heard — Liability)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA
      (Case T-461/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Head of Unit post - Inclusion on the reserve list - Acceptance of the offer of employment - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Conditions of employment - Character references - Article 12 of the CEOS - Manifest error of assessment - Processing of personal data - Right to be heard - Liability))
      (2019/C 103/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: TN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 25 November 2016 by which ENISA withdrew the offer of employment made to the applicant for the position of Head of the Administrative Services Unit, as well as the annulment of the decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, an order that ENISA pay compensation for the material and non-material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of the unlawful withdrawal of that offer.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders TN to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-549/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council (Civil service — Officials — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Vacancy notice — Rejection of an application — Appointment of another candidate — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Duym v Council
      (Case T-549/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Vacancy notice - Rejection of an application - Appointment of another candidate - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of non-discrimination))
      (2019/C 103/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Frederik Duym (Oostende, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the decision of the advisory selection board, communicated to the applicant by email of 7 October 2016, rejecting his application in the context of the selection procedure for the Head of the Dutch Language Unit for the Council’s Translation Service, as well as the subsequent decision of the appointing authority of the Council of 20 December 2016 to appoint Ms A. to the post.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

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

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-559/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Abdulkarim v Council
      (Case T-559/17) (1)

      ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment))
      (2019/C 103/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Veiga and I. Pouli, then by I. Pouli and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

                  2.

                  Orders that the effects of Decisions 2017/917 and 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Mr Abdulkarim until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdulkarim.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-580/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility — Autonomy of remedies — Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave — Obligation to state reasons — Successive fixed-term contracts — Abuse of rights — Right to be heard — Liability)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Karp v Parliament
      (Case T-580/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility - Autonomy of remedies - Non-renewal of a contract as a member of the auxiliary contract staff covering maternity leave - Obligation to state reasons - Successive fixed-term contracts - Abuse of rights - Right to be heard - Liability))
      (2019/C 103/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the European Parliament’s decision classifying the applicant in function group II, at grade 4, step 1, under the contract as a member of the contract staff signed on 12 May 2016 and which expired on 11 November 2016 and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered on account of his classification and the non-renewal of his contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Kevin Karp to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case T-604/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish) (Community design — Registered Community design — Failure to apply for renewal — Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration — Application for restitutio in integrum — Cumulative conditions — Duty of due care — Delegation of power — Loss of a right)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Thun v EUIPO (Fish)
      (Case T-604/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Registered Community design - Failure to apply for renewal - Removal of the design from the register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Cumulative conditions - Duty of due care - Delegation of power - Loss of a right))
      (2019/C 103/41)
      Langue of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: B. Giordano, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 1680/2016-3) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Thun SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-656/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)
      (Case T-656/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2017 (Case R 2067/2016-5);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA;

                  3.

                  Orders Mr Ludwig Manfred Jacob to bear his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-667/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council
      (Case T-667/17) (1)

      ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))
      (2019/C 103/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Limonet, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 178, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they relate to Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

                  2.

                  Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2017/1245 and Decision 2018/778 be maintained with regard to Alkarim for Trade and Industry until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until any dismissal of that appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-766/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier Community design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp)
      (Case T-766/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier Community design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
      (2019/C 103/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 738/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Di-Ka Vertriebs.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-767/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a light fitting — Ground for invalidity — Earlier design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp)
      (Case T-767/17) (1)

      ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a light fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
      (2019/C 103/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by H. Lauf, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Briloner Leuchten GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Briloner Leuchten GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017(Case R 746/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Briloner Leuchten

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.18.


title: Case T-785/17: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY — Earlier word mark SAM — Relative ground for refusal — Extinction of rights due to acquiescence — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY)
      (Case T-785/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY - Earlier word mark SAM - Relative ground for refusal - Extinction of rights due to acquiescence - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court - Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Time Gate GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 974/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Time Gate and Mr Ilhan.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Ercan Ilhan to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case T-789/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark TecDocPower — Earlier EU word and figurative marks TECDOC and TecDoc — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)
      (Case T-789/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark TecDocPower - Earlier EU word and figurative marks TECDOC and TecDoc - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: TecAlliance GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by P. Engemann, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 (Case R 2433/2016-1) relating to opposition proceedings between TecAlliance and Siemens

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders TecAlliance GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.