title: Case C-525/17 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/19

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-525/17 P)
   (2017/C 424/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16, EU:T:2017:449;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-295/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia — Spain) — Europamur Alimentación SA v Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Scope of that directive — Sale by a wholesaler to retailers — Jurisdiction of the Court — National legislation laying down a general prohibition on selling at a loss — Exceptions based on criteria not provided for by that directive)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia — Spain) — Europamur Alimentación SA v Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia,
   (Case C-295/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Scope of that directive - Sale by a wholesaler to retailers - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation laying down a general prohibition on selling at a loss - Exceptions based on criteria not provided for by that directive))
   (2017/C 424/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Europamur Alimentación SA

      Defendants: Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which contains a general prohibition on offering for sale or selling goods at a loss and which lays down grounds of derogation from that prohibition that are based on criteria not appearing in that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-551/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Lucaccioni v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Exposure to asbestos and other substances — Industrial disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 14 — Article 266 TFEU — Misuse of power — Medical Committee — Collegiate principle — Breach of the Medical Committee’s mandate — Obligation to state reasons — Action for compensation — Length of the proceedings — Non-pecuniary harm)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Lucaccioni v Commission
   (Case T-551/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Exposure to asbestos and other substances - Industrial disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Article 14 - Article 266 TFEU - Misuse of power - Medical Committee - Collegiate principle - Breach of the Medical Committee’s mandate - Obligation to state reasons - Action for compensation - Length of the proceedings - Non-pecuniary harm))
   (2017/C 424/46)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Arnaldo Lucaccioni (San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy) (represented initially by: M Velardo, and subsequently by: L. Gialluca, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 June 2014 to grant the applicant only an increase of 20 % of the allowance referred to in Article 14 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European [Union] against the risk of accident and of occupational disease following the applicant’s request of 7 June 2000 and, secondly, compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 26 June 2014, granting Mr Arnaldo Lucaccioni an increase of 20 % of the allowance under Article 14 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European [Union] against the risk of accident and of occupational disease;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay Mr Lucaccioni compensation of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm caused;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-74/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-303/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Works of construction — French overseas departments — Provisions rendered applicable by national law — Transactions consisting in sale and installation on buildings — Classification as a single transaction — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-303/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Works of construction - French overseas departments - Provisions rendered applicable by national law - Transactions consisting in sale and installation on buildings - Classification as a single transaction - Lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 424/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Solar Electric Martinique

      Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) by decision of 20 May 2016.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-704/17: Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Spain v Commission

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/53

         Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-704/17)
   (2017/C 424/77)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the competition notice;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1/58, of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations through the imposition of the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the candidate is to be solely in English, French and German.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, of Article 22 of the Charter and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations in that the choice of second language is improperly restricted to solely three languages, namely English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union, and because in Option 1 the third language is restricted to English, French and German, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea: the choice of English, French and German constitutes an arbitrary choice that gives rise to discrimination on the ground of language prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-533/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 September 2017 — Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-533/17)
   (2017/C 424/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) read in the light of recital 15, to be interpreted as meaning that an operating air carrier can be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation solely on the basis of such extraordinary circumstances that first occurred on the day of the flight, or can extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day?

               2.

               If extraordinary circumstances that already occurred on the previous day can also justify the cancellation or long delay of a flight on the following day, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, as part of the reasonable measures which it must take in order to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to make adequate provision for such contingencies in advance and, in any event, also adequately provide replacement aircraft at its home base?

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


title: Case T-613/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — La Guirigaña and Others v ECB and SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/40

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — La Guirigaña and Others v ECB and SRB
   (Case T-613/17)
   (2017/C 424/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: La Guirigaña, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: J. Díaz-Patón Porras, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an application has been lodged alleging that the European Union has incurred financial liability in respect of acts and omissions attributable to the European Central Bank and take note of the joint lodging of an action against the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 and, following the appropriate legal procedure, should:

               —

               Declare that the European Union has incurred financial liability towards the applicants;

               —

               Annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 7 June 2017, depriving it of effect,

               —

               In the alternative, should the Court not uphold the aforementioned claims, order that the Single Resolution Board compensate the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-705/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/54

         Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB
   (Case T-705/17)
   (2017/C 424/78)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Enrique Manuel Temes Rial (Vilagarcía de Arousa, Spain), Jon Nuñes Baracaldo (Erandio Astraburua, Spain), Maria Luisa Muniente Pallas (Madrid, Spain), Alfonso Velasco Nieto (Madrid) and Gloria María Zarco Martínez (Guarnizo el Astillero, Spain) (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer).

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which that decision is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

               —

               Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-707/17: Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Euroways v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/55

         Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Euroways v SRB
   (Case T-707/17)
   (2017/C 424/79)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Euroways, SL (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;

               —

               Order the Board to pay the applicant compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’):

                           —

                           Principally, the reimbursement of the investments made, namely EUR 543 242,11 in Banco Popular shares;

                           —

                           In the alternative to the above claim, EUR 44 055,19;

               —

               Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;

               —

               Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points.

               —

               Order the SRB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.


title: Case T-601/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Paraskevaidis v Cedefop. (Civil Service — Officials — Cedefop — Promotion — 2015 Promotion exercise — Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 — Articles 44 and 45 of the Staff Regulations — Comparison of the merits — Duty to state reasons — Implied rejection of the complaint — Liability)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Paraskevaidis v Cedefop.
   (Case T-601/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Cedefop - Promotion - 2015 Promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 - Articles 44 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of the merits - Duty to state reasons - Implied rejection of the complaint - Liability))
   (2017/C 424/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Georges Paraskevaidis (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, and A. Duron, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application brought under Article 270 TFEU for, first, the annulment of the decision of the director of Cedefop of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise;

               2.

               Orders Cedefop to pay Mr Paraskevaidis EUR 2 000 as compensation for the damage he suffered

               3.

               Dismisses the action for the remainder.

               4.

               Orders Cedefop to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296 of 16 August 2016 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-31/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case C-537/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 September 2017 — Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 September 2017 — Claudia Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA
   (Case C-537/17)
   (2017/C 424/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Claudia Wegener

      Defendant: Royal Air Maroc SA

      Question referred

   Is there a flight, for the purposes of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, in the case where an air carrier’s air transport operation includes scheduled interruptions (stopovers) outside the territory of the European [Union] with a change of aircraft?

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


title: Case C-383/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vion Livestock BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets — Protection of animals during transport — Export refunds — Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination — Recovery of amounts over-paid)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vion Livestock BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-383/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Protection of animals during transport - Export refunds - Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination - Recovery of amounts over-paid))
   (2017/C 424/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vion Livestock BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, read in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 2(2) of Regulation No 817/2010, and with points 3, 7 and 8 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that repayment of export refunds under Regulation No 817/2010 may be required where the transporter of bovine animals has not kept a copy of the journey log provided for in Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 up to date until the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-563/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 September 2017 — Associação Peço a Palavra and Others v Conselho de Ministros

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 September 2017 — Associação Peço a Palavra and Others v Conselho de Ministros
   (Case C-563/17)
   (2017/C 424/32)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Associação Peço a Palavra, João Carlos Constantino Pereira Osório, Maria Clara Marques Pires Sarmento Franco, Sofia da Silva Santos Arauz and Maria João Galhardas Fitas

      Defendants: Conselho de Ministros

      Others: PARPÚBLICA — Participações Públicas, SGPS, SA, and TAP, SGPS, SA

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 49 and 54 TFEU and the principles set out in those articles, in a procedure relating to the process for the indirect reprivatisation of the share capital in a publicly owned company engaged in the activity of air transport, permit the documents establishing that procedure to include the requirement to keep the headquarters and effective management of that company in the Member State where it was incorporated as a criterion for selecting the purchases proposed by the potential investors and for choosing the successful offers?

               (2)

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and the principles set out in those articles, and the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and necessity, in a procedure relating to the process for the indirect reprivatisation of the share capital in that company, permit the documents establishing that procedure to include the requirement to comply with the public service obligations on the part of the purchasing entity as a criterion for selecting the purchases proposed by the potential investors and for choosing the successful offers?

               (3)

               Does EU law, in particular Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and the principles set out in those articles, in a procedure relating to the process for the indirect reprivatisation of the share capital in that company, permit the documents establishing that procedure to include the requirement to maintain and develop the current national hub on the part of the purchasing entity as a criterion for selecting the purchases proposed by the potential investors and for choosing the successful offers?

               (4)

               As regards the activity carried on by that company whose share capital is being disposed of under the reprivatisation procedure, must it be regarded as a service in the internal market subject to the provisions of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) due to the presence of the exception laid down in Article 2(2)(d) of that directive relating to services in the field of transport, and consequently, does that procedure also have to be shown to be subject to that directive?

               (5)

               If the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of that directive, in a procedure relating to the process for the indirect reprivatisation of the share capital in that company, permit the documents establishing that procedure to include the requirement to comply with the public service obligations on the part of the purchasing entity as a criterion for selecting the purchases proposed by the potential investors and for choosing the successful offers?

               (6)

               If the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of that directive, in a procedure relating to the process for the indirect reprivatisation of the share capital in that company, permit the documents establishing that procedure to include the requirement to maintain and develop the current national hub on the part of the purchasing entity as a criterion for selecting the purchases proposed by the potential investors and for choosing the successful offers?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market

      OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Case T-718/17: Action brought on 19 October 2017 — Italy v Commission

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/55

         Action brought on 19 October 2017 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-718/17)
   (2017/C 424/80)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Notice of Open Competitions — Administrators and assistants in the buildings sector — EPSO/AD/342/17 (AD 6) — Building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers) — EPSO/AST/141/17 (AST 3) — Profile 1. Building construction coordinators/technicians — Profile 2. Building coordinators/technicians in air conditioning and electromechanical and electrical engineering — Profile 3. Occupational safety/building safety assistants, published in
                     Official Journal of the European Union No C 242 A of 27 July 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those set out in Case T-695/17, Italian Republic v Commission.


title: Case T-640/17: Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Escriba Serra and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/40

         Action brought on 20 September 2017 — Escriba Serra and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-640/17)
   (2017/C 424/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Juan Escriba Serra (Girona, Spain) and seven other applicants (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               principally, and for reasons of procedural economy:

                           —

                           Annul (revoke) in part Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., in so far as it orders the conversion and write down of Banco Popular subordinated bonds;

                           —

                           Annul in part Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A., in so far as it orders the conversion of Banco Popular subordinated bonds;

               —

               In the alternative,

                           —

                           Annul in full Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

                           —

                           Annul in full Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; and

               —

               Order the Board and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case C-425/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 96(a) — Infringement proceedings — Article 99(1) — Presumption of validity — Article 100 — Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Relationship between an action for infringement and a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Procedural autonomy)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner
   (Case C-425/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 96(a) - Infringement proceedings - Article 99(1) - Presumption of validity - Article 100 - Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Relationship between an action for infringement and a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Procedural autonomy))
   (2017/C 424/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hansruedi Raimund

      Defendant: Michaela Aigner

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 99(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that an action for infringement brought before an EU trade mark court in accordance with Article 96(a) of that regulation may not be dismissed on the basis of an absolute ground for invalidity, such as that provided for in Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation, without that court having upheld the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity brought by the defendant in that infringement action, pursuant to Article 100(1) of the regulation, and based on the same ground for invalidity.

               2.

               The provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as not precluding an EU trade mark court from being able to dismiss an action for infringement within the meaning of Article 96(a) of that regulation on the basis of an absolute ground for invalidity, such as that provided for in Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation, even though the decision on the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, brought pursuant to Article 100(1) of the regulation, and based on the same ground for invalidity, has not become final.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-643/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Euroways v Commission and SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/41

         Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Euroways v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-643/17)
   (2017/C 424/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Euroways, SL (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-706/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — HB v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2014 promotion exercise — Comparative consideration of the merits — Discrimination based on sex — Error in law)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — HB v Commission
   (Case T-706/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2014 promotion exercise - Comparative consideration of the merits - Discrimination based on sex - Error in law))
   (2017/C 424/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: HB (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HB v Commission (F-125/15, EU:F:2016:164), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders HB to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings;

               3.

               The costs relating to the proceedings at first instance remain allocated in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, HB v Commission (F-125/15).

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


title: Case C-522/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — A v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Second subparagraph of Article 201(3) and Article 221(3) and (4) — Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 — Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 — Additional import duties — Artificial arrangement intended to avoid the additional duties due — Customs declaration based on false information — Persons capable of being held liable for the customs debt — Limitation period)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — A v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën
   (Case C-522/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Second subparagraph of Article 201(3) and Article 221(3) and (4) - Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 - Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 - Additional import duties - Artificial arrangement intended to avoid the additional duties due - Customs declaration based on false information - Persons capable of being held liable for the customs debt - Limitation period))
   (2017/C 424/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that documents that are required to be produced by Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 163/67/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 684/1999 of 29 March 1999, constitute information required to draw up the customs declaration within the meaning of Article 201(3).

               2.

               Article 201(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘debtor’ of the customs debt, within the meaning of that article, covers the natural person who has been closely and knowingly involved in the design and artificial construction of a structure of commercial transactions, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which had the effect of reducing the amount of the import duties legally owed, although that natural person has not himself communicated the false information which had served as the basis for drawing up the customs declaration, where it appears from the facts that that person had or ought reasonably to have known that the transactions concerned by that structure had been carried out not in the ordinary course of trade, but solely for the purpose of improperly benefiting from the advantages provided for by Union law. In that regard it is irrelevant that the person concerned designed and artificially constructed that structure only after he had obtained the guarantee of its lawfulness from customs experts.

               3.

               Article 221(4) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the customs debt on importation is incurred, in accordance with Article 201(1) thereof, through the release for free circulation of goods liable to import duties, is not such, in itself, as to exclude the possibility of communicating to the debtor the amount of import duties owed on such goods after the expiry of the period laid down in Article 221(3) of that regulation, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-659/17: Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/42

         Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB
   (Case T-659/17)
   (2017/C 424/61)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Antonio Vallina Fonseca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset y A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by Mr José Antonio Vallina Fonseca as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;

               —

               Order the Board to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’);

               —

               Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case;

               —

               Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., infringes the nemo auditur turpitudinem opropiam allegans principle and Article 88 of Regulation No 806/2014, in that a crisis that SRB itself triggered has led to the adoption of an act adversely affecting Banco Popular and its shareholders.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the resolution decision, the Board infringed the duty of diligence, the principle of good administration in Article 296 TFEU, the principle of prohibition of arbitrary conduct, and the principle of nemo auditur turpitudinem suam allegans.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 17 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the applicant was obliged to renounce its property without having been given the opportunity to be heard, either before or after.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board infringed Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Treaty on European Union, in that the applicant was deprived of its property despite the existence of less restrictive measures.


title: Case T-721/17: Action brought on 17 October 2017 — Topor-Gilka v Council

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/56

         Action brought on 17 October 2017 — Topor-Gilka v Council
   (Case T-721/17)
   (2017/C 424/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergey Topor-Gilka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 (1) of 4 August 2017;

               —

               in the alternative, and in any event, partially annul the contested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 in so far as, by that decision, the applicant was included in No 160 in the list of persons and entities under Article 1 of the decision; and

               —

               join the proceedings in this case with the parallel proceedings concerning OOO WO Technopromexport pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment

                           —

                           Reliance on Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 (2)

                           That regulation concerns a category of persons other than that to which the applicant belongs and is therefore not a reason why the applicant should be included in the list at issue.

                           —

                           Allegation of a breach of contract
                           The Council justifies the decision to add the applicant to the list at issue on the basis that, among other things, Mr Topor-Gilka led the contract negotiations with Siemens Gas Turbine Technology OOO concerning the original supply contract, in which connection the provisions of that original supply contract were, it is contended, subsequently breached. The appraisal of whether there was in fact a breach of contract is a matter for determination under Russian law. The parties to the supply contract have instituted proceedings before the Moscow Court of Arbitration. Until such time as that Court of Arbitration has decided the case, the allegation of a breach of contract constitutes an insufficiently solid factual basis and is unsuitable as a justification for Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP).

                           —

                           Transport of gas turbines to Crimea
                           The allegation made against the applicant is that he was responsible for the onward transport of gas turbines to Crimea. The published press articles are not clear and are based on anonymous sources. It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish that the reasons relied on are sound; it is not the task of the undertaking concerned to adduce evidence to the contrary, namely that those reasons are not sound.

                           —

                           Infringement of the principles of international humanitarian law
                           Russia is required under international law to restore and maintain public order in Crimea, which at the present time also includes ensuring a safe and constant energy supply. The humanitarian need for such an energy supply is not taken into account in the statement of reasons relating to Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP), and nor are the rules of international humanitarian law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               Decision 2017/1418 infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The reasons stated in No 160 in the annex to the decision are, overall, vague and insufficiently detailed. They do not indicate the specific reasons as to why the Council, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to apply restrictive measures to the applicant and are thus not at all adequate to satisfy the requirements of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and the right to effective legal protection
               By failing to comply with the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, the Council infringed the applicant’s right of defence and right to effective legal protection, since it is not possible for the applicant to formulate the best possible defence in the absence of knowledge as to the main reasons why he was added to the list at issue.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 203 I, p. 5).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 46).


title: Case C-556/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Subheading 6212 20 00 (Panty girdles) — Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature — Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System)

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/12

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-556/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Subheading 6212 20 00 (Panty girdles) - Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature - Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System))
   (2017/C 424/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lutz GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that knickers characterised by reduced horizontal elasticity, but which do not contain inelastic elements incorporated into them, may be classified under subheading 6212 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature if an examination establishes that they have substantially reduced horizontal elasticity in order to support the human body and create a slimming effect on the silhouette.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-660/17: Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v Commission and SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/42

         Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-660/17)
   (2017/C 424/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Miralla Inversiones, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-722/17: Action brought on 17 October 2017 — WO Technopromexport v Council

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/57

         Action brought on 17 October 2017 — WO Technopromexport v Council
   (Case T-722/17)
   (2017/C 424/82)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: OOO WO Technopromexport (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 (1) of 4 August 2017;

               —

               in the alternative, and in any event, annul the contested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 in so far as, by that decision, the applicant was included in No 39 in the list of persons and entities under Article 1 of the decision; and

               —

               join the proceedings in this case with the parallel proceedings concerning Mr Topor-Gilka pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment

                           —

                           Reliance on Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 (2)

                           That regulation concerns a category of persons other than that to which the applicant belongs and is therefore not a reason why the applicant should be included in the list at issue.

                           —

                           Allegation of a breach of contract
                           The Council justifies the decision to add the applicant to the list at issue on the basis that, inter alia, gas turbines were supplied to Crimea, and that the provisions of an original supply contract with Siemens Gas Turbine Technology OOO were breached. The appraisal of whether there was in fact a breach of contract is a matter to be determined under Russian law. The parties to the supply contract have instituted proceedings before the Moscow Court of Arbitration. Until such time as that Court of Arbitration has decided the case, the allegation of a breach of contract constitutes an insufficiently solid factual basis and is unsuitable as a justification for Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP).

                           —

                           Transport of gas turbines to Crimea
                           The allegation against the applicant is that it supplied gas turbines to Crimea. The published press articles are not clear and are based on anonymous sources. It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish that the reasons relied on are sound; it is not the task of the undertaking concerned to adduce evidence to the contrary, namely that those reasons are not sound.

                           —

                           Infringement of the principles of international humanitarian law
                           Russia is required under international law to restore and maintain public order in Crimea, which at the present time also includes ensuring a safe and constant energy supply. The humanitarian need for such an energy supply is not taken into account in the statement of reasons relating to Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP), and nor are the rules of international humanitarian law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               Decision 2017/1418 infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The reasons stated in No 39 in the annex to the decision are, overall, vague and insufficiently detailed. They do not provide specific reasons as to why the Council, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to apply restrictive measures to the applicant and are thus not at all adequate to satisfy the requirements of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and the right to effective legal protection
               By failing to comply with the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, the Council infringed the applicant’s right of defence and right to effective legal protection, since it is not possible for the applicant to formulate the best possible defence in the absence of knowledge as to the main reasons why it was added to the list at issue.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 203 I, p. 5).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 46).


title: Case T-661/17: Action brought on 29 September 2017 — Fundación Agustín de Betancourt v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/43

         Action brought on 29 September 2017 — Fundación Agustín de Betancourt v SRB
   (Case T-661/17)
   (2017/C 424/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fundación Agustín de Betancourt (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Salama Salama, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               On the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicant’s representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;

               —

               In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-243/17: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/59

         Order of the General Court of 18 October 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA
   (Case T-243/17) (1)

   (2017/C 424/83)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-662/17: Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Link Flexible and Others v SRB

text:
               11.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 424/44

         Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Link Flexible and Others v SRB
   (Case T-662/17)
   (2017/C 424/64)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Link Flexible Sicav, SA (Madrid, Spain) and 20 other applicants (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               On the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 adopting a resolution scheme in respect of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicants for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicants’ representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;

               —

               In accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 November 2017 in Case E-12/16 — Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Fish and other marine products — Material scope of the EEA Agreement — Protocol 9 — Surveillance competence)

text:
               5.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 119/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 November 2017
   in Case E-12/16
   Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway

      (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Fish and other marine products — Material scope of the EEA Agreement — Protocol 9 — Surveillance competence)

   (2018/C 119/10)
   In Case E-12/16, Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision of 27 July 2016 in ESA Case No 79116, and for a declaration that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has the competence and obligation to carry out surveillance of State aid to the fisheries sector, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as unfounded.

               2.

               Orders Marine Harvest ASA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 November 2017 in Case E-19/16 — Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government (Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)

text:
               5.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 119/10

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 November 2017
   in Case E-19/16
   Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government

      (Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)

   (2018/C 119/11)
   In Case E-19/16, Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government — REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen, and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the appellant, to and/or from a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC.

               2.

               No intensity assessment is required of the amount of work performed while travelling.

               3.

               The frequency of such journeys is immaterial unless the effect is to transfer the worker’s place of employment to a new fixed or habitual place of attendance.


               5.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 119/11

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 23 November 2017 in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS
   (Case E-10/17)
   (2018/C 119/12)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 23 November 2017 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 November 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS on the following questions:

               1.

               Does it follow from the EEA law principle of equivalence that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly in connection with an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by ESA imposing a fine?

               2.

               Does the EEA law principle of effectiveness restrict the EEA States' right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before ESA has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party?

               3.

               What elements should be given weight in the assessment of whether the application of the national limitation period, as mentioned in Question 2, is compatible with the EEA law principle of effectiveness in competition cases of a nature and scope like the present one?


title: Case C-304/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: American Express Company v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) 2015/751 — Interchange fees for card-based payment transactions — Article 1(5) — Three party payment card scheme treated as equivalent to a four party payment card scheme — Conditions — Issuance by a three party payment card scheme of card-based payment instruments ‘with a co-branding partner or through an agent’ — Article 2(18) — Concept of ‘three party payment card scheme’ — Validity)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: American Express Company v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
   (Case C-304/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) 2015/751 - Interchange fees for card-based payment transactions - Article 1(5) - Three party payment card scheme treated as equivalent to a four party payment card scheme - Conditions - Issuance by a three party payment card scheme of card-based payment instruments ‘with a co-branding partner or through an agent’ - Article 2(18) - Concept of ‘three party payment card scheme’ - Validity))
   (2018/C 123/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: American Express Company

      Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

      Intervening parties: Diners Club International Limited, MasterCard Europe SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an arrangement between a co-branding partner or an agent, on the one hand, and a three party payment card scheme, on the other, it is not a prerequisite of that scheme being regarded as issuing card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent and therefore being considered to be a four party payment card scheme, within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation 2015/751, that that co-branding partner or agent act as an issuer, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of that regulation;

               2.

               Consideration of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(5) and Article 2(18) of Regulation 2015/751.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case C-17/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat and Apcom Select SA

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat and Apcom Select SA
   (Case C-17/18)
   (2018/C 123/16)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Mureș

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Virgil Mailat, Delia Elena Mailat and Apcom Select SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the conclusion of an agreement whereby a company leases a building in which specific catering activities had previously been carried on in a restaurant to another company, together with all capital equipment and inventory items, where the tenant company continues the same catering activities in a restaurant with the same name as was used previously, constitute a transfer of a business within the meaning of Articles 19 and 29 of Directive 2006/112/EC? (1)

               2.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the transaction described above a supply of services that may be regarded as the letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 135(1)(l) of [Directive 2006/112/EC], or a supply of complex services that may not be regarded as the letting of immovable property and that is taxable by operation of the law?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-118/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BEPOST — Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST — Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)
   (Case T-118/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BEPOST - Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST - Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No detriment to reputation and no dilution - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
   (2018/C 123/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents,)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by L. Hubert and K. Ongena, and subsequently by H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 3107/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and bpost

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-919/16: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Collins v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — Action manifestly inadmissible — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/21

         Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Collins v Parliament
   (Case T-919/16) (1)

   ((Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities - Action manifestly inadmissible - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2018/C 123/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de León and M. Dean, Agents)

      Re:

   Concerning, first, an action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 not to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, secondly, an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly incurred as a result of that decision and, thirdly, a request that the General Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Jane Maria Collins is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case T-436/16: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission (Action for damages — Limitation — No proof of loss — Action manifestly bound to fail)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/21

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission
   (Case T-436/16) (1)

   ((Action for damages - Limitation - No proof of loss - Action manifestly bound to fail))
   (2018/C 123/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) (Algrange, France) and Philippe Kazenas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Wizel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of acts of corruption committed by a servant of the Commission.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) and Mr Philippe Kazenas shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case T-786/16: Action brought on 12 December 2017 — PV v Commission

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/22

         Action brought on 12 December 2017 — PV v Commission
   (Case T-786/16)
   (2018/C 123/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this application admissible and well-founded;

         Consequently, order:

               —

               the annulment of the contested decisions of 31 May 2016 and 5 July 2016 on the deductions from salary, in respect of which the applicant brought claims under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 29 July 2016 (R/492/16) and 30 July 2016 (R/493/16) respectively, both of which were rejected on 28 November 2016;

               —

               the annulment of the contested decisions of 15 September 2016 and 11 July 2016 on the deductions from salary and the settling of the salary at zero with effect from July 2016, in respect of which the applicant brought a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 19 September 2016 (R/496/16), which was rejected on 17 January 2017;

               —

               the annulment of the contested decision of 21 September 2016 informing the applicant of an amalgamated debt of EUR 42 704,74 to the Commission, in respect of which a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was brought on 8 November 2016 (R/556/16) and rejected on 17 January 2017;

               —

               the annulment of the contested debit note No 324417009991 of 20 July 2017 in the amount of EUR 42 704,74, demanding payment of the disputed debt of EUR 42 704,74, in respect of which a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was brought on 31 July 2017 (R/346/17) and rejected on 29 November 2017;

               —

               the annulment of the revocation decision made by the tripartite Appointing Authority on 26 July 2016 against which the applicant brought a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, made on 3 October 2016 (R/510/16), which was rejected on 2 February 2017, and of the disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087 in all aspects;

               —

               compensation for the loss suffered as a result of the psychological harassment in DG Employment, DG Budget, DG Interpretation and jointly by the Medical Service, PMO and DG HR, the first incident of harassment dating back to October 2008;

               —

               the annulment of all the applicant’s 2014, 2015 and 2016 appraisal reports due to harassment in DG SCIC;

         and award the following damages on the basis of Article 340 TFEU:

               —

               order compensation of EUR 889 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm and of EUR 132 828,67 in respect of the pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those contested decisions, estimated, without prejudice to reassessment of the sum of EUR 1 021 828,67, together with late-payment interest until the date of settlement in full;

         in the alternative, in the light of the harassment suffered and the ‘intentionally false statements’ used, which means that such irregularities cannot be tolerated by the EU legal order:

               —

               the annulment of all the other claims for deductions from salary for the period from March 2015 to July 2016 — namely 12 decisions of 9.2.2015, 5.5.2015, 24.5.2015, 1.10.2015, 12.11.2015, 15.1.2016, 22.4.2016, 31.5.2016, 5.7.2016, 16.9.2016 and 11.7.2016 and all the rejections of his applications for annulment, namely decisions R/1110/14 of 11.3.2015, R/225/15 of 3 July 2015, R/292/15 of 23 July 2015, R/376/15 of 18 August 2015, R/419/15 of 25 September 2015, R/496/15 of 23 October 2015, R/787/15 and R/788/16 and R/71/16 of 21 March 2016, R/282/16 of 12 September 2016;

               —

               the annulment of all the rejection decisions concerning the claims in respect of the appraisal procedures, namely the rejections R/1100/14 of 12 March 2015, R/313/15 of 11 August 2015, R/676/15 of 13 October 2015, R/127/16 and R/128/16 of 7 June 2016 and R/342/16 of 21 September 2016;

               —

               the annulment of all the rejections of the applications for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — of 23 October 2014, 20 January 2015, 20 March 2015, 30 July 2015 (application D/322/15), 15 March 2016 (application D/776/15) and 18 May 2016 respectively;

               —

               the annulment of all the ‘medical opinions’ on unauthorised absences of Dr [X] of 16 and 18 July 2018 [sic], 8 August 2014, 4 September 2014, 4 December 2014, 4 February 2015, 13 April 2015, 4 June 2015, 11 August 2015, 14 October 2015, 4 December 2015, 5 February 2016, 22 March 2016, 18 April 2016, 3 June 2016, 30 June 2016 and 26 July 2016;

               —

               the annulment of the ‘medical opinions’ of 27 June 2014 of Dr [X] and of 10 October 2014 of Dr [Y] which returned the applicant to those harassing him;

               —

               the annulment of the rejection of the administrative claim R/182/16 of 14 July 2016 brought on 22 March 2016 concerning an unauthorised absence of 16 and 17 March 2016 at his home;

               —

               the annulment of all the debt letters of 10 March 2015, 11 May 2015, 10 June 2015, 11 August 2015, 13 November 2015, 9 December 2015, 18 July 2016 respectively and the letters giving pre-notification of the debit note of 21 June 2016 and 21 September 2016;

         and in any event:

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 1e, point 2, and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union enshrining the prohibition of psychological harassment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21a, 22b and 23 of the Staff Regulations on the prohibition of the commission of unlawful acts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the duty of care and assistance, infringing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 59 and incorrect interpretation of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning impartial treatment and the right to be heard respectively, the rights of the defence and of [Article] 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations concerning the right to be heard by the Appointing Authority before referral to the Disciplinary Board and in accordance with the case-law in Kerstens v Commission (judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission, T-270/16 P, not published, EU:T:2017:74).

         The applicant also seeks the award of damages of EUR 889 000 in respect of non-pecuniary harm and of EUR 132 828,67 in respect of pecuniary harm in accordance with Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case C-643/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of American Express Company v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive (EU) 2015/2366 — Payment services in the internal market — Article 35(1) — Obligation to provide authorised or registered payment service providers with access to payment systems — Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 35(2) — Inapplicability of that obligation to payment systems composed exclusively of payment service providers belonging to a group — Applicability of that obligation to three party payment card schemes that have entered into co-branding or agency arrangements — Validity)

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 February 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of American Express Company v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
   (Case C-643/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive (EU) 2015/2366 - Payment services in the internal market - Article 35(1) - Obligation to provide authorised or registered payment service providers with access to payment systems - Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 35(2) - Inapplicability of that obligation to payment systems composed exclusively of payment service providers belonging to a group - Applicability of that obligation to three party payment card schemes that have entered into co-branding or agency arrangements - Validity))
   (2018/C 123/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of American Express Company

      Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Diners Club International Limited, Mastercard Europe SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 35(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that a three party payment card scheme that has entered into a co-branding agreement with a co-branding partner does not lose the benefit of the exception provided for by that provision and, therefore, is not subject to the obligation laid down in Article 35(1) of that directive in a situation where that co-branding partner is not a payment service provider and does not provide payment services within that scheme with respect to the co-branded products. However, a three party payment card scheme that makes use of an agent for the purposes of supplying payment services loses the benefit of that exception and, therefore, is subject to the obligation laid down in Article 35(1).

               2.

               Consideration of the second question has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 35 of Directive 2015/2366.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-47/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — UZ v Parliament

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/24

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — UZ v Parliament
   (Case T-47/18)
   (2018/C 123/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and rule,

               —

               that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 to impose on him the disciplinary penalty of a reduction in grade from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, with effect from 1 March 2017 and the setting of his promotion points acquired at grade AD 13 to zero is annulled;

               —

               that the decision rejecting his application for assistance is annulled;

               —

               that the European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 3 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in that the applicant was not heard by the Appointing Authority for its decision under Article 3 of Annex IX or before rejecting the applicant’s application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9, 10 and 16 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in that the contested disciplinary decision infringes the principle of proportionality and imposes on the applicant an overall penalty not provided for in Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, namely a reduction in grade, the withdrawal of promotion points and the applicant’s exclusion from any managerial task.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging irregularity in the work of the Disciplinary Board, in that not only was that Board improperly seised of the matter without the applicant being heard in advance, but it also disregarded, throughout the proceedings, the rights of the defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, in particular in so far as the Appointing Authority failed to hear the applicant before rejecting the applicant’s application for assistance.