title: Case C-540/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2019 — HX v Council of the European Union (Appeal – Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic – Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria – Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/33

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2019 — HX v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-540/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)
      (2019/C 383/36)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, advokat)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

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

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018


title: Case C-541/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 3(1)(b) – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment – Sign comprising a hashtag)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/34

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
      (Case C-541/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Distinctive character - Criteria for assessment - Sign comprising a hashtag)
      (2019/C 383/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AS

         Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that in examining the distinctive character of a sign in respect of which registration as a trade mark is sought, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including all the likely types of use of the mark applied for. The latter correspond, in the absence of other indications, to the types of use which, in the light of the customs in the economic sector concerned, can be practically significant.

         (1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018


title: Case C-559/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheading 85044030 – Static converters – Classification criteria – Main intended use)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/35

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
      (Case C-559/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 85044030 - Static converters - Classification criteria - Main intended use)
      (2019/C 383/38)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

         Operative part of the judgment

      Subheading 85 044 030 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 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, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that static converters such as those at issue in the main proceedings may fall within that subheading only if the main use for which they are intended is with ‘telecommunication apparatus or automatic data processing machines and the units thereof’, within the meaning of that subheading, which is a matter for verification by the referring court.

         (1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.


title: Case C-239/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) – United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 – Article 3(b) – Conditions for obtaining – Marketing authorisation – Authorisation issued to a third party – Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/35

      Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) – United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.
      (Case C-239/19) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(b) - Conditions for obtaining - Marketing authorisation - Authorisation issued to a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 383/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

         Defendant: Genentech Inc.

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 4 March 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019


title: Case C-71/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2019 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2018 in Case T-854/16: Barata v Parliament

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/36

      Appeal brought on 30 January 2019 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2018 in Case T-854/16: Barata v Parliament
      (Case C-71/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, avocats, and by J. Grayston, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      By order of 26 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr João Miguel Barata shall bear his own costs.


title: Case C-185/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arbitral de pe lângă Asociația de arbitraj de pe lângă Baroul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2019 — KE v LF

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/36

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Arbitral de pe lângă Asociația de arbitraj de pe lângă Baroul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2019 — KE v LF
      (Case C-185/19)
      (2019/C 383/41)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Arbitral de pe lângă Asociația de arbitraj de pe lângă Baroul Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: KE

         Defendant: LF
      By Order of 24 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible and declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to give a ruling thereon.


title: Case C-412/19 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2019 by Xianhao Pan against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2019 in Case T-777/17: Pan v EUIPO - Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/37

      Appeal brought on 27 May 2019 by Xianhao Pan against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2019 in Case T-777/17: Pan v EUIPO - Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)
      (Case C-412/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Xianhao Pan (represented by: M. Oliva, avvocato)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Entertainment One UK Ltd
      By order of 12 July 2019 of the Vice-President the Court of Justice held that the appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Case C-460/19 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by Stada Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-804/17, Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/37

      Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by Stada Arzneimittel AG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-804/17, Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-460/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/43)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (represented by: A.K. Marx, R. Kaase, J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 1 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-541/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — XW v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/38

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — XW v Eurowings GmbH
      (Case C-541/19)
      (2019/C 383/44)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: XW

         Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

         Questions referred

      Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the flights were booked together?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-542/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — YX v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/38

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — YX v Eurowings GmbH
      (Case C-542/19)
      (2019/C 383/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: YX

         Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

         Question referred

      Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the flights were booked together?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-574/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2019 — PL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/39

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2019 — PL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
      (Case C-574/19)
      (2019/C 383/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PL

         Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
      The case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice by Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2019.


title: Case C-584/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 August 2019 — Criminal proceedings against A***** and further unknown perpetrators

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/40

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 August 2019 — Criminal proceedings against A***** and further unknown perpetrators
      (Case C-584/19)
      (2019/C 383/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Wien

         Accused: A***** and further unknown perpetrators

         Other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

         Question referred

      Are the terms ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order (1) in criminal matters and ‘public prosecutor’ within the meaning of Article 2(c)(i) of the aforementioned Directive to be interpreted as also including the public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being directly or indirectly subject to orders or individual instructions from the executive, such as the Senator of Justice in Hamburg, in the context of the adoption of a decision on the issuance of a European investigation order?

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.


title: Case C-597/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 6 August 2019 — M.I.C.M. Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Limited v Telenet BVBA

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/41

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 6 August 2019 — M.I.C.M. Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Limited v Telenet BVBA
      (Case C-597/19)
      (2019/C 383/49)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Ondernemingsrechtbank Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: M.I.C.M. Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Limited

         Defendant: Telenet BVBA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                              (a)

                              Can the downloading of a file via a peer-to-peer network and the simultaneous provision for uploading of parts (‘pieces’) thereof (which may be very fragmentary as compared to the whole) (‘seeding’) be regarded as a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, (1) even if the individual pieces as such are unusable?
                              If so,

                              (b)

                              is there a de minimis threshold above which the seeding of those pieces would constitute a communication to the public?

                              (c)

                              is the fact that seeding can take place automatically (as a result of the torrent client’s settings), and thus without the user’s knowledge, relevant?

                  2.

                              (a)

                              Can a person who is the contractual holder of the copyright (or related rights), but does not himself exploit those rights and merely claims damages from alleged infringers — and whose economic business model thus depends on the existence of piracy, not on combating it — enjoy the same rights as those conferred by Chapter II of Directive 2004/48 (2) on authors or licence holders who do exploit copyright in the normal way?

                              (b)

                              How can the licence holder in that case have suffered ‘prejudice’ (within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive 2004/48) as a result of the infringement?

                  3.

                  Are the specific circumstances set out in questions 1 and 2 relevant when assessing the correct balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the enforcement of intellectual property rights and, on the other, the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Charter, such as respect for private life and protection of personal data, in particular in the context of the assessment of proportionality?

                  4.

                  Is, in all those circumstances, the systematic registration and general further processing of the IP-addresses of a ‘swarm’ of ‘seeders’ (by the licence holder himself, and by a third party on his behalf) legitimate under the General Data Protection Regulation, (3) and specifically under Article 6(1)(f) thereof?

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

         (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

         (3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).


title: Case C-620/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/43

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)
      (Case C-620/19)
      (2019/C 383/51)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law, appellant in the first appeal and defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law, respondent in the first appeal and applicant: D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

         Interested party: the representative of the federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 23(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) also serve to protect the interests of financial authorities?

                  2.

                  If so, does the wording ‘the enforcement of civil law claims’ also cover the defence of the financial authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?

                  3.

                  Does the provision of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/279 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the financial authority?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).


title: Case C-625/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/44

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v XD
      (Case C-625/19)
      (2019/C 383/52)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

         Defendant: XD

         Question referred

      Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of its responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, its proportionality prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?

         (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-626/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v YC

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/44

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v YC
      (Case C-626/19)
      (2019/C 383/53)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

         Defendant: YC

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, the proportionality thereof, prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the negative: has the condition been met that the decision of the Public Prosecutor to issue an EAW and, in particular, the question of its proportionality, must be capable of being the subject of court proceedings which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection as referred to in paragraph 75 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019 (Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456) if, after his actual surrender, the requested person can avail of a legal remedy under which the invalidity of the EAW may be invoked before a court in the issuing Member State and under which that court examines, inter alia, whether the decision to issue that EAW was proportionate?

         (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-627/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/45

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB
      (Case C-627/19)
      (2019/C 383/54)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

         Defendant: ZB

         Question referred

      In the case where an EAW seeks the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by an enforceable decision of a judge or court, whereas the EAW has been issued by a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, and there is a guarantee that he acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, does the condition also apply that there must be a possibility of instituting court proceedings against the decision to issue an EAW — in particular its proportionality — which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection?


title: Case C-630/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 August 2019 — PAGE Internacional Lda. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/46

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 August 2019 — PAGE Internacional Lda. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
      (Case C-630/19)
      (2019/C 383/55)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: PAGE Internacional Lda.

         Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

         Question referred

      Must Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality be interpreted as meaning that the Portuguese legislature is entitled, under Article 21(1)(d) and 21(2)(d) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), as approved by Decree No 394-B/84 of 26 December 1984, to limit the deductibility of the input VAT on expenditure on food to 50 %, even where the taxable person demonstrates that all that expenditure has been fully applied to the carrying on of its taxed economic activity?

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


title: Case C-636/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Y v CAK

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/46

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Y v CAK
      (Case C-636/19)
      (2019/C 383/56)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Y

         Defendant: CAK

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Directive 2011/24/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that persons referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, (2) who receive benefits in their country of residence at the expense of the Netherlands but who are not insured in the Netherlands under the statutory health insurance scheme can rely directly on that directive for the reimbursement of costs of care provided?
                  If not,

                  2.

                  Does it follow from Article 56 TFEU that, in a case such as the present one, not granting reimbursement for care provided in a Member State other than the country of residence or the country providing the pension is an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of services?

         (1)  Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45).

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


title: Case C-666/19 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16: Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/47

      Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16: Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission
      (Case C-666/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, avocats)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hyet Sweet

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16 in its entirety;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought by the appellant in its action before the General Court and annul the Contested Regulation (1), in so far as it relates to the appellant, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; and

                  —

                  order the defendant and the intervener before the General Court to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal and those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-741/16.

            In the alternative, the appellant respectfully requests the Court of Justice to:

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the second part of the first plea of the application;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on any other of the appellant’s pleas, as justified by the state of procedure; and

                  —

                  reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant advances five pleas of appeal.
      First plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 54, 64-67, 69-70, 78-80, 87, 93 and 97-98 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the appellant’s accounts were not prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standards (‘IAS’) and thus failed to satisfy Article 2(7)(c) 2nd indent of the Basic Regulation (2). As a further consequence, the General Court erred in law when it declined to examine the appellant’s claim under Article 2(7)(c) 3rd indent of the Basic Regulation.
      Second plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 113, 115-118, 125-126 and 128 -130 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(7)(a), 6(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and its duty of care and good administration by failing to request and assess a detailed export transaction listing from the analogue country producer.
      Third plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 141-144, 152-153 and 155-162 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(10) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article 2.4 ADA and its duty of care and good administration by refusing to adjust the normal value and the appellant’s export price for dumping margin calculation purposes.
      Fourth plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 148 and 150 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 3(2)(3) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the principle of good administration and its duty of care by not adjusting the Union producer’s noninjurious price level on account of differences in additional services, packaging and patent and know how royalties payable by the Union industry.
      Fifth plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 189-191, 194, 200-201 and 203-206 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(7)(a) and (10), 3(2)(3)(5), 6(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the principle of good administration and its duty of care by failing to ensure that the Union industry’s raw material costs from its related supplier were at arm’s length without requesting the completion of a related supplier’s questionnaire.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2016, L 204, p. 92).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).


title: Case C-669/19 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-838/16: BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/48

      Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-838/16: BP v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
      (Case C-669/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal; and consequently

                  —

                  grant the appellant adequate compensation for the non-material and material damage caused;

                  —

                  grant the appellant adequate compensation related to the consequences of FRA’s defamatory statements against her and damage to her professional and personal reputation;

                  —

                  order FRA to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1)

                  First plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error of assessment of the admissibility of the new plea in law and of the evidences submitted under Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure; violation of the right to be heard; absence of a fair trial; infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

                  2)

                  Second plea in law, alleging error of law and manifest error in the assessment of paragraphs 112, 115 to 117, 126, 140 to 142 of appellant’s action for damages related to alleged breach of article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), breach of Article 8 ECHR and violation of paragraphs 63-65 of the Bavarian Lager Judgement (2); violation of the duty to state reasons in relation to initial partial disclosure erga omnes and subsequent full disclosure of appellant’s personal data; breach of the legal equilibrium established by the EU legislator between Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 45/2001 (3); and violation of the Bavarian Lager Judgement.

                  3)

                  Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure and violation of the duty to state reasons; violation of case law regarding costs; limitation of rights; and breach of Article 52 EU Charter.

                  4)

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure; refusal to allow the application for omission of certain sensitive information from the judgement T-838/16; subsequent excessive redaction of judgement; as well as absence of a lawful composition of the 5th Chamber with no possibility to act in extended composition or to vote effectively.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43).

         (2)  Judgment of 29 June 2010, Commission/Bavarian Lager (C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378).

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-697/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-762/15: Sony et Sony Electornics v Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/49

      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-762/15: Sony et Sony Electornics v Commission
      (Case C-697/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc (hereinafter referred to as Sony or appellants) (represented by: N. Levy, avocat, R. Snelders, avocat, E.M. Kelly, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

            In the alternative, should the state of the proceedings not permit a decision by the Court of Justice, the appellants respectfully request that the Court:

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court;

                  —

                  reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.
      First plea: The General Court erred in substituting its own reasoning for that of the decision (Commission’s decision in case AT.39639 - Optical Disk Drives C(2015) 7135 final).

                  —

                  The decision was based on a finding that the appellants participated in ‘several separate infringements’ that could also be characterized as a single and continuous infringement. The General Court accepted that not all of the individual contacts alleged in the decision were proven.

                  —

                  Unproven contacts cannot amount to infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU. The General Court nevertheless upheld the decision’s finding of a single and continuous infringement based on those unproven contacts forming part of an overall ‘body of evidence’ on which the Commission could rely. By substituting its own reasoning for that of the decision, the General Court erred in law.

            Second plea: The General Court erred in law by upholding the finding of participation a single and continuous infringement for the period alleged based on a more limited number of contacts than had been identified in the decision.

                  —

                  The General Court wrongly held that Sony participated in the alleged infringement continuously, between August 23, 2004 and September 15, 2006, despite accepting that there was a period of approximately eight months during which the Commission had failed to prove any anticompetitive contacts involving Sony.

                  —

                  The General Court’s reasoning is internally inconsistent, accepting that there were no proven contacts involving Sony for a period of more than six months, but also finding that these contacts took place every ‘two or three months’.

            Third plea: The General Court erred in law by treating a single continuous infringement as necessarily consisting of a series of separate infringements.

                  —

                  The General Court failed to find that the Commission had breached Sony’s rights of defense, despite the Commission’s finding in the decision - without previously alleging in the Statement of Objections - that the alleged conduct amounted not only to a single and continuous infringement but also several separate infringements.

                  —

                  The General Court wrongly held that the Commission had provided adequate reasons for its finding that Sony had committed several separate infringements.

            Fourth plea: The General Court erred in law, breached the principles of equal treatment and proportionality and failed to state reasons, in upholding the fine against Sony based on the same revenues that formed the basis for a separate fine against Lite-On.

                  —

                  The General Court breached the principle, in the Fining Guidelines, that the value of sales should “reflect the economic importance of the infringement” and the “relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement,” and infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

                  —

                  The General Court breached its duty to give reasons because it failed properly to address the argument that double counting inflated the economic importance of the infringement.

                  —

                  The General Court erred in law in dismissing the appellants’ argument that the Commission had failed to justify its departure from its established practice.


title: Case C-698/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Sony Optiarc, Inc, Sony Optiarc America, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-763/15: Sony Optiarc, Sony Optiarc America v Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/51

      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Sony Optiarc, Inc, Sony Optiarc America, Inc against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-763/15: Sony Optiarc, Sony Optiarc America v Commission
      (Case C-698/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Sony Optiarc, Inc, Sony Optiarc America, Inc (hereinfafter referred to as Sony or appellants) (represented by: N. Levy, avocat, R. Snelders, avocat, E.M. Kelly, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

            In the alternative, should the state of the proceedings not permit a decision by the Court of Justice, the appellants respectfully request that the Court:

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court;

                  —

                  reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.
      First plea: The General Court erred in substituting its own reasoning for that of the decision (Commission’s decision in Case AT.39639 – Optical Disk Drives).

                  —

                  The decision was based on a finding that the appellants participated in ‘several separate infringements’ that could also be characterized as a single and continuous infringement. The General Court accepted that not all of the individual contacts alleged in the decision were proven.

                  —

                  Unproven contacts cannot amount to infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU. The General Court nevertheless upheld the decision’s finding of a single and continuous infringement based on those unproven contacts forming part of an overall body of ‘evidence and indicia which could be taken into account, considered as a whole’ on which the Commission could rely. By substituting its own reasoning for that of the decision, the General Court erred in law.

            Second plea: The General Court erred in law by upholding the finding of participation a single and continuous infringement based on a more limited number of contacts than had been identified in the decision.

                  —

                  The General Court wrongly held that Sony Optiarc participated in the alleged infringement continuously, between July 25, 2007 and October 29, 2008, despite accepting that there was a period of approximately five months during which the Commission had failed to prove any anticompetitive contacts involving Sony Optiarc.

                  —

                  The General Court’s reasoning is internally inconsistent, accepting that there were no proven contacts involving Sony Optiarc for a period of approximately five months, but also finding that ‘the longest established period without a contact taking place is only 3 months’ and that ‘[m]ost of the contacts were only a month apart’.

            Third plea: The General Court erred in law by treating a single continuous infringement as necessarily consisting of a series of separate infringements.

                  —

                  The General Court failed to find that the Commission had breached Sony Optiarc’s rights of defense, despite the Commission’s finding in the decision - without previously alleging in the Statement of Objections - that the alleged conduct amounted not only to a single and continuous infringement but also several separate infringements.

                  —

                  The General Court wrongly held that the Commission had provided adequate reasons for its finding that Sony Optiarc had committed several separate infringements.

            Fourth plea: The General Court erred in law, breached the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and failed to give reasons, in upholding the fine against Sony Optiarc based on the same revenues that formed the basis for a separate fine against Quanta.

                  —

                  The General Court breached the principle, in the Fining Guidelines, that the value of sales should “reflect the economic importance of the infringement” and the “relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement,” and infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

                  —

                  The General Court breached its duty to give reasons because it failed properly to address the argument that double counting inflated the economic importance of the infringement.

                  —

                  The General Court erred in law in dismissing the appellants’ argument that the Commission had failed to justify its departure from its established practice.


title: Case C-706/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-522/15 CCPL and Others v Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/55

      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-522/15 CCPL and Others v Commission
      (Case C-706/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/63)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellants: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (represented by: S. Bariatti, E. Cucchiara, A. Cutrupi, avvocati)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul in part, within the limits set out in the present appeal, the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision as far as concerns the fines imposed on the appellants for infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) the principle of proportionality and the principle of adequacy;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the present action, the appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal:

                  1.

                  First ground of appeal — Error in law, absence or inadequacy of reasoning in relation to the complaints relating to ‘parental liability’
                  By its first ground of appeal, the appellants claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and the absence of inadequacy of reasoning in that the General Court ruled that the holding company of the group was liable, even though the intermediary company — which owned the companies involved in the infringement — was found not to be liable.

                  2.

                  Second ground of appeal — Manifest error of assessment and error in law in relation to the alleged infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003
                  By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court manifestly erred in law by rejecting the plea relating to the incorrect application of the 10 % limit laid down in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, in that the Commission applied that limit to a turnover different to the consolidated turnover, calculated on the basis of the EU accounting consolidation rules. Moreover, the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and adequacy because of the unacceptable difference in treatment, for the purpose of the calculation of the consolidated turnover referred to in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of, on the one hand, the areas of activity which were transferred on a definitive basis and, on the other hand, those which were leased, on the ground of a presumed difference in terms of economic and substantial profitability.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-883/16: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Poland v Commission (Internal market in natural gas – Directive 2009/73/EC – Commission Decision approving the variation of the conditions for the exemption from EU requirements of the rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline with regard to third party access and tariff regulation – Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73 – Principle of energy solidarity)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/57

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Poland v Commission
      (Case T-883/16) (1)

      (Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Commission Decision approving the variation of the conditions for the exemption from EU requirements of the rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline with regard to third party access and tariff regulation - Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73 - Principle of energy solidarity)
      (2019/C 383/64)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Rudzińska and M. Kawnik, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicants: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina, G. Bambāne and V. Soņeca, Agents), and by Republic of Lithuania, (represented: initially by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Dzikovič and R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently by R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, and subsequently by R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, from the rules on third party access and tariff regulation.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, from the rules on third party access and tariff regulation;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Republic of Poland;

                  3.

                     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Joined Cases T-721/17 and T-722/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Topor-Gilka and WO Technopromexport v Council (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/58

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Topor-Gilka and WO Technopromexport v Council
      (Joined Cases T-721/17 and T-722/17) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment)
      (2019/C 383/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-721/17: Sergey Topor-Gilka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

         Applicant in Case T-722/17: OOO WO Technopromexport (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Meyer, lawyer)

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

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze, J. Möller and R. Kanitz, and subsequently by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Baumgart, M. Kellerbauer, T. Ramopoulos and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of 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), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/392 of 12 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 69, p. 48), and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1237 of 12 September 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 231, p. 27).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Sergey Topor-Gilka and OOO WO Technopromexport to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case T-50/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — BO v Court of Justice of the European Union (Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Freelance translators – Selection procedure – Rejection of a tenderer’s offer – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/59

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — BO v Court of Justice of the European Union
      (Case T-50/18) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Freelance translators - Selection procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
      (2019/C 383/67)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BO (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

         Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders BO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-51/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — BP v Court of Justice of the European Union (Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Freelance translators – Selection procedure – Rejection of a tenderer’s offer – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — BP v Court of Justice of the European Union
      (Case T-51/18) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Freelance translators - Selection procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
      (2019/C 383/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BP (represented by: S. Tassi, lawyer)

         Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders BP to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-686/19: Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/100

      Action brought on 7 October 2019 – Euroapotheca v EUIPO – General Nutrition Investment (GNC LIVE WELL)
      (Case T-686/19)
      (2019/C 399/119)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Euroapotheca UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė, and E. Saukalas, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark GNC LIVE WELL – European Union trade mark No 940 981

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 2189/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-486/18: Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/28

      Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission
      (Case T-486/18)
      (2018/C 381/33)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Parties

         Applicant: Danske Slagtermestre (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2018 in State aid case SA.37433(2017/FC), notified as document C(2018) 2259;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.
                  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is that the Commission was not impartial in making its decision.
                  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Danske Slagtermestre’s right to impartial treatment.

                  3.

                  The third plea in law is that the aid grants an advantage.

                  4.

                  The fourth plea in law is that the aid is selective.

                  5.

                  The fifth plea in law is that the aid is granted by the State or through State resources.

                  6.

                  The sixth plea in law is that the aid distorts competition.

                  7.

                  The seventh plea in law is that the aid affects trade between Member States.

            The applicant claims, in support of the third to seventh pleas in law, inter alia, that the Commission erred in law in finding that the measure did not confer an advantage on certain undertakings.

                  —

                  First, it is claimed that the measure confers on large slaughter houses an obvious advantage because the measure ensures that smaller slaughter houses pay more than twice as much in waste water charges per animal for slaughter as compared with large slaughter houses, which therefore can pay a higher price to suppliers.

                  —

                  Second, it is claimed that there is no objective reason for conferring a reduction in waste water charges only on large slaughter houses, when the ‘true cost’ payment is the same for small, medium-sized and large slaughter houses, and the measure can only be ‘cost true’, if the reduction is also given to smaller slaughter houses.

                  —

                  Third, it is claimed that the Commission’s market economy operator (MEO) test is inapplicable for the purposes of assessing whether the measure confers an advantage, because no Danish undertaking has any right to be disconnected from a central treatment plant, and because there is no actual or potential market for waste water drainage in Denmark.

                  —

                  Fourth, it is claimed that even if the MEO test is applicable, the Commission has not correctly applied that test. The MEO test can only be based on data established in relation to the activity of the specific user. It is incompatible with the MEO test to use average figures obtained from other municipalities in the calculation and, further, to ignore the significant capital expenditure of treatment plants on the connection of large beneficiary undertakings to the municipal plant in the form of expenditure on waste water infrastructure and the expansion of treatment plants.


title: Case C-248/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/3

      Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO
      (Case C-248/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/05)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte, J. Stock, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’
      By order of 11 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-516/18: Action brought on 30 August 2018 — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/40

      Action brought on 30 August 2018 — Luxembourg v Commission
      (Case T-516/18)
      (2018/C 399/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present application admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  primarily, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in that the Commission has not demonstrated that the measures in question are selective.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of any advantage in favour of Engie.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in so far as the Commission is in fact implementing disguised tax harmonisation.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9) and of the rights of the defence.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative and alleging infringement of Article 16 of the abovementioned Regulation 2015/1589, in so far as the Commission has ordered recovery of the aid in breach of fundamental principles of EU law.


title: Case C-457/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/19

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Republic of Slovenia v Republic of Croatia
      (Case C-457/18)
      (2018/C 399/27)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: M. Menard)

         Defendant: Republic of Croatia

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the defendant has infringed:

                  —

                  Article 2 TEU and Article 4(3) TEU;

                  —

                  Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, together with Annex I thereto, configuring the European Union system for controlling, verifying and implementing the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy, which was established by Regulation No 1224/2009 and by Implementing Regulation No 404/2011;

                  —

                  Articles 4 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders, together with Article 13 thereof; and

                  —

                  Article 2(4) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.

            The applicant also claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the defendant to put an end to the infringements mentioned above without delay; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises the following pleas in law.
      First plea in law:
      By unilaterally falling short of the commitment, which it made during the EU accession process, to comply with the arbitration award and thus with the boundary delimited by that award and the other obligations imposed thereby, the Republic of Croatia refuses to respect the rule of law, which is a fundamental value of the European Union (Article 2 TEU).
      Second plea in law:
      By virtue of the fact that it unilaterally refuses to fulfil its obligations under the arbitration award, while at the same time preventing Slovenia from fully exercising its sovereignty over certain parts of its territory under the Treaty, the Republic of Croatia is in breach of its duty of sincere cooperation with the European Union and with the Republic of Slovenia as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. The Republic of Croatia’s conduct is jeopardising the attainment of the objectives of the European Union, peace-building and an ever closer union between nations, and the objectives of the Union rules relating to the territory of the Member States (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU). In addition, the Republic of Croatia is making it impossible for the Republic of Slovenia to implement EU law throughout its mainland and marine territory and to act in accordance with that law, and in particular in compliance with the secondary Union rules relating to the territory of the Member States (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU).
      Third plea in law:
      The Republic of Croatia is infringing Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, and in particular the mutual access regime laid down in Article 5 thereof and Annex I thereto. The regime, which applies to Croatia and Slovenia since 30 December 2017, grants 25 fishing vessels from each country free access to the other country’s territorial sea, as determined according to international law, that is, under the arbitration award. The Republic of Croatia is not permitting the Republic of Slovenia to exercise its rights under that regime and is thus infringing Article 5 of that regulation due to the fact that: (i) it is refusing to implement the mutual access regime; (ii) it is refusing to recognise the validity of the legislation adopted by the Republic of Slovenia for that purpose; and (iii) by systematically applying fines, it is denying Slovenian fishing vessels free access to the marine waters which the arbitration award of 2017 has defined as Slovene, and, a fortiori, free access to Croatian waters falling within the scope of the mutual access regime.
      Fourth plea in law:
      The Republic of Croatia is infringing Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011. Croatian police patrol boats, without authorisation from the Republic of Slovenia, are accompanying Croatian fishing vessels when they fish in Slovenian waters, thereby preventing Slovenian fishing inspectors from carrying out controls. At the same time, the Croatian authorities are imposing fines on Slovenian fishing vessels for unlawful boundary crossing and illegal fishing when they fish in Slovenian waters which Croatia claims for itself. In addition, Croatia is not sending Slovenia the data regarding the activities of Croatian vessels in Slovenian waters, as is required by those two regulations. Thus, the Republic of Croatia is not permitting the Republic of Slovenia to carry out controls in waters under its sovereignty and jurisdiction and is not respecting Slovenia’s exclusive jurisdiction as a coastal State in its territorial sea, thereby infringing Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 404/2011.
      Fifth plea in law:
      The Republic of Croatia has infringed and continues to infringe Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). Croatia does not recognise the boundaries established by the arbitration award as a common boundary with Slovenia, is not cooperating with Slovenia to protect that ‘external border’, and is not in a position to guarantee adequate protection of that border, so that it is infringing Articles 13 and 17 of that regulation, and Article 4 thereof, which requires borders to be established in accordance with international law.
      Sixth plea in law:
      The Republic of Croatia has infringed and continues to infringe Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, which is to apply to ‘marine waters’ of Member States, as defined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (‘Unclos’) (Article 2(4) of the directive). The Republic of Croatia rejects the arbitration award which has established that delimitation of the boundaries and — on the contrary — includes Slovenian waters in its own maritime spatial planning: consequently, it does not allow for harmonisation with the geographical maps of the Republic of Slovenia, thereby infringing that directive, in particular Articles 8 and 11 thereof.


title: Case C-471/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/21

      Appeal brought on 18 July 2018 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15, Esso Raffinage v European Chemicals Agency
      (Case C-471/18 P)
      (2018/C 399/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P. Klappich and C. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Esso Raffinage, European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2018 in Case T-283/15;

                  —

                  dismiss the action;

                  —

                  order the applicant to pay the costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds:
      First, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in attributing legal significance to the letter entitled ‘Statement of Non-Compliance following a Dossier Evaluation Decision under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006’ which ECHA addressed to the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing on 1 April 2015 (‘the letter’) and classifying it as an act which could be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.
      Secondly, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and disregarding Article 22(2) of the REACH Regulation.
      Thirdly, the appellant does not share the General Court’s view on the general division of areas of competence between Member States and ECHA, according to which ECHA alone is competent to decide whether registration information complies with the REACH requirements.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).


title: Case T-708/17: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — OPS Újpest v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Preliminary examination procedure — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/71

      Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — OPS Újpest v Commission
      (Case T-708/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/95)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions that the Commission allegedly adopted concerning the complaints SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft. (OPS Újpest Kft.) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-116/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein and Sauga v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents concerning the public debt and the budget deficit of an EU Member State — Refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the economic policy of the European Union and of a Member State)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein and Sauga v ECB
      (Case T-116/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents concerning the public debt and the budget deficit of an EU Member State - Refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the economic policy of the European Union and of a Member State)
      (2018/C 427/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) and Michael Sauga (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Koreng and T. Feldmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and T. Filipova, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and L.E. Capiel, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB, notified to the applicants by letter of 15 December 2016, rejecting their application for access to two documents concerning the public deficit and the public debt of the Hellenic Republic.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Spiegel–Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG and Mr Michael Sauga to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-709/17: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — M-Sansz v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers — Preliminary examination procedure — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘party concerned’ — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/72

      Order of the General Court of 28 September 2018 — M-Sansz v Commission
      (Case T-709/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Preliminary examination procedure - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘party concerned’ - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/96)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions that the Commission allegedly adopted concerning the complaints SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (M-Sansz Kft.) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-575/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/93

      Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)
      (Case T-575/18)
      (2018/C 427/123)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark The Inner Circle — International registration designating the European Union No 1 266 666

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 1402/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismisses the appeal of the applicant against the decision of the defendant's Opposition Division dated 26 April 2017, and thus upholds the IR holder's application for protection of the international trademark ‘The Inner Circle’ (No. 1 266 666) in the European Union for class 41;

                  —

                  order the IR holder and the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-272/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic — Flat-rate financial corrections — Specific financial corrections — Area-related aid scheme — Concept of permanent pasture — Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % — Flat-rate correction of 10 % — Flat-rate correction of 5 % — Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Key controls — Ancillary controls — Multiannual measures — Long-term projects)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Greece v Commission
      (Case T-272/16) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Flat-rate financial corrections - Specific financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Flat-rate correction of 10 % - Flat-rate correction of 5 % - Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Multiannual measures - Long-term projects)
      (2018/C 427/50)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou, A. Vasilopoulou, D. Ntourntoureka and E. Leftheriotou, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, then D. Triantafyllou, J. Aquilina and K. Skelly, and lastly D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-702/18: Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Durand and Others v Parliament

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/40

      Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Durand and Others v Parliament
      (Case T-702/18)
      (2019/C 65/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Pascal Durand (Paris, France) and seven other applicants (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the Parliament has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 226(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 198(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, by the failure of the Conference of Presidents to submit to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry;

                  —

                  in subsidiary order, in the event that the General Court would hold that the letter of 21 September 2018 of the President of the Parliament contains an unequivocal and final position putting an end to the failure to act, annul the decision contained in the letter of 21 September 2018 to refuse to submit to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry;

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of possible intervening parties.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants submit that the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament was required to formulate and send to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal on the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry, concerning the welfare of animals in transport, as requested by 223 Members of the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 198(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A decision refusing to do so would breach these same articles.


title: Case T-725/18: Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/41

      Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Intercontinental Exchange Holdings v EUIPO (BRENT)
      (Case T-725/18)
      (2019/C 65/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: R. Hoy, Solicitor and J. Bowhill, QC)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BRENT — Application for registration No 16 710 014

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2018 in Case R 624/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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