title: Case T-599/18: Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/101

      Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB
      (Case T-599/18)
      (2018/C 427/133)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, P. Medina Sánchez and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 14 September 2018;

                  —

                  Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against the decision of the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) of 14 September 2018 not to carry out an ex-post definitive valuation in the context of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning a resolution scheme in respect of the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. (‘the contested decision’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). That plea is divided into three parts.

                              —

                              First part, based on the argument that the contested decision determines the possibility to write back creditors’ claims or increase the value of the consideration paid without carrying out an ex-post definitive valuation.

                              —

                              Second part, based on the argument that the SRB did not verify that the information on which the valuation is based are as recent and complete as possible and, accordingly, any losses incurred on the assets of an entity may be fully taken into account.

                              —

                              Third part, based on infringement of the Meroni case-law in that the Commission should have given its consent to the SRB’s decision not to ensure that an ex-post definitive valuation is carried out.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power which vitiates the contested decision and which a body of objective, relevant and consistent evidence demonstrates. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the contested decision does not follow the procedure of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 referred to above and that SRB’s aim in adopting that decision is to hide the real situation of Banco Popular Español, S.A.


title: Case T-632/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 — Refusal of access — Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/60

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Erdősi Galcsikné v Commission
      (Case T-632/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)
      (2018/C 427/78)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Éva Erdősi Galcsikné (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

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

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Éva Erdősi Galcsikné to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case T-601/18: Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Wewi Mobile v EUIPO (Fi Network)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/102

      Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Wewi Mobile v EUIPO (Fi Network)
      (Case T-601/18)
      (2018/C 427/134)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Wewi Mobile, SL (Villena, Spain) (represented by: J. C. Erdozain López, L. Montoya Terán and J. Galán López, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Fi Network — Application for registration No 16 026 601

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 1462/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, save for the granting of the trade mark in respect of ‘magnets, magnetizers, demagnetizers’;

                  —

                  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.


title: Case T-574/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — EAEPC v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Parallel trade in medicines — Agreement operating a distinction between prices charged for products intended for resale in Spain and prices charged for products intended for export to other Member States — Request for re-examination of a complaint following judgments of the Court of Justice and the General Court — Article 266 TFEU — Rejection of a complaint — No Union interest — Cessation of the anti-competitive practice — Absence of persisting anti-competitive effects — Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint — Article 105 TFEU — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Procedural rights of a complainant — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — EAEPC v Commission
      (Case T-574/14) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Parallel trade in medicines - Agreement operating a distinction between prices charged for products intended for resale in Spain and prices charged for products intended for export to other Member States - Request for re-examination of a complaint following judgments of the Court of Justice and the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Rejection of a complaint - No Union interest - Cessation of the anti-competitive practice - Absence of persisting anti-competitive effects - Case being dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Article 105 TFEU - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Procedural rights of a complainant - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2018/C 427/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Vollrath, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: GlaxoSmithKline plc (Brentford, United Kingdom) and GlaxoSmithKline SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially I.S. Forrester QC, and A. Komninos, lawyer, and subsequently A. Komninos)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant concerning an alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA of Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case C-542/18 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/12

      Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-646/16 P, Simpson / Council
      (Case C-542/18 RX)
      (2018/C 427/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

         Applicant: Erik Simpson (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

         Questions to be reviewed

      Whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council, affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council, had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      Whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.


title: Case T-288/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ezz and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of funds — Admissibility — Objectives — Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted — Renewal of designation of the applicants on the list of persons targeted — Factual basis — Plea of illegality — Legal basis — Proportionality — Right to fair trial — Presumption of innocence — Right to good administration — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ezz and Others v Council
      (Case T-288/15) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Admissibility - Objectives - Criteria for inclusion of persons targeted - Renewal of designation of the applicants on the list of persons targeted - Factual basis - Plea of illegality - Legal basis - Proportionality - Right to fair trial - Presumption of innocence - Right to good administration - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)
      (2018/C 427/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented by: initially J. Lewis, B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, J. Binns, S. Rowe, Solicitors, and J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and subsequently B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, S. Rowe and H. de Charette, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), secondly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40) and, thirdly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/496 of 21 March 2017 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2017 L 76, p. 22), in that those acts concern the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and, in addition, pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.


title: Case C-543/18 RX: Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/12

      Decision of the Court (Reviewing Chamber) of 17 September 2018 to review the judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2018 in Case T-693/16 P, HG v Commission

      (Case C-543/18 RX)
      (2018/C 427/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties to the proceedings before the General Court

         Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Questions to be reviewed

      The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T 693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F 149/15, EU:F:2016:155), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.


title: Case T-43/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany — Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland — Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement — Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments — Acts against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission
      (Case T-43/16) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Retail market for mobile telecommunications services and market for wholesale access and call origination in Germany - Acquisition of E-plus by Telefónica Deutschland - Decision declaring the concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Implementation of the non-MNO component of the Final Commitments - Acts against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur (Germany)) (represented by: J.O. Murach, lawyer, and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, M. Farley and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, (Munich, Germany), (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund, B. Herbers and K. Baubkus, lawyers

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision contained IN the letter of 19 November 2015 in relation to the implementation of the non-MNO remedy provided for in the Final Commitments made obligatory by Commission Decision C(2014) 4443 final of 2 July 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments (Case M.7018 Telefónica Deutschland v E-plus).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders 1&1 Telecom GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and by Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG, with the exception of those incurred by the Commission in the context of the plea of inadmissibility rejected by the order of 22 June 2016, 1&1 Telecom v Commission (T-43/16, EU:T:2016:402).

         (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-515/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — FAKRO v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/80

      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — FAKRO v Commission
      (Case T-515/18)
      (2018/C 427/107)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: FAKRO sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, legal adviser)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Commission of 14 June 2018, issued in the proceedings conducted as a result of the complaint submitted to the Commission by FAKRO sp. z o.o. on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position by the VELUX Group (Ref. AT.40026 VELUX);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, together with an insufficient statement of reasons for the contested decision, resulting in a finding that there is no EU interest in pursuing the case.
                  The applicant argues that the Commission did not take a definitive position either in relation to the prerequisites for a possibility of finding abuse of a dominant position or in relation to any of the seven categories of acts allegedly committed. In assessing the complaint that the dominant undertaking had applied predatory pricing, the Commission uncritically based its decision on the arguments put forward by that undertaking, disregarding the applicant’s arguments and failing to carry out even a cursory analysis of the issue. The applicant considers that the sole purpose of the launching of the fighting brand by the dominant undertaking was to make it impossible for its competitors to enter the market or to make development on that market impossible, and that the investment discounts applied by that undertaking are selective, exclusive and discriminatory, with the result that there is an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. The applicant argues that the evidence points clearly to the conclusion by the dominant undertaking of exclusivity agreements contrary to Article 102 TFEU, and that the conducting of investigative proceedings would not require substantial resources to be set aside for that purpose, but would require only verification of the information and evidence submitted by the applicant.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration in connection with a manifest error of assessment regarding the lack of EU interest in continuing the proceedings.
                  More than 71 months elapsed between the submission of the complaint and the issuing of the decision rejecting that complaint. The Commission’s tardy handling of the matter is not justified by any special circumstances. The Commission has comprehensive knowledge on the subject of the European roof-window market. The slowness to act on the Commission’s part may result in a lack of opportunity for the applicant to assert its rights before the national competition authorities on account of the limitation period for claims laid down in national law.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) through the refusal to provide the applicant with access to the files, resulting in a denial to the applicant of effective rights of defence.
                  In accordance with the applicable rules, when the Commission informs a complainant of its intention to reject a complaint, the complainant has a right of access to the documents on which the Commission bases its provisional assessment. In the present case, the Commission did not provide the applicant with any such access. Furthermore, the Commission erred in law with regard to the principles for assessing EU interest by failing to carry out a proper assessment of the nature and effects of the acts allegedly committed by the dominant undertaking.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Case T-62/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PUMA — Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)
      (Case T-62/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PUMA - Earlier international figurative trade marks PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

         Other party: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, South Korea) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 December 2015 (Case R 1052/2015-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Puma SE;

                  3.

                  Orders Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-546/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2018 — FN and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 23 August 2018 — FN and Others
      (Case C-546/18)
      (2018/C 427/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: FN, GM, Adler Real Estate AG, HL, Petrus Advisers LLP

         Defendant authority: Übernahmekommission

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (1) — read in the light of the principle of effectiveness under EU law — preclude an interpretation according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is not given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against that same person, as a consequence of which that person once again has all the factual and legal pleas and evidence available to him to challenge the breach of law established in the decision that already has the force of res judicata?

                  2.

                  Do Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids — read in the light of the principle of effectiveness under EU law — preclude an interpretation according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a legal person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is not given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against the body authorised to represent that legal person, as a consequence of which that legal person (the body) once again has all the factual and legal pleas and evidence available to it to challenge the breach of law established in the decision that already has the force of res judicata?

                  3.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
                  Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a natural person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against that same person, with the result that that person is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?

                  4.

                  If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
                  Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national practice according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a legal person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against the body authorised to represent that legal person, with the result that that person (the body) is prevented from challenging, in law and fact, the breach of law already established with the force of res judicata?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


title: Case T-537/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Vialto Consulting v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/81

      Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Vialto Consulting v Commission
      (Case T-537/18)
      (2018/C 427/108)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Vialto Consulting (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s contested decision, whereby the Commission imposed on the applicant a two-year exclusion and published information on that exclusion on its website;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 434 889,82, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, first because of the two-year exclusion, and second because of the publication of information on that exclusion on its website, that damage being estimated at EUR 400 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against the European Commission decision Ares (2018) 3463041, dated 29 June 2018, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996, as the European Commission assumes without justification that OLAF did not exceed its powers with respect to conduct of the inspection at the premises of Vialto.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to the right to good administration and failure to state sufficient reasons.

                  3.

                  The third plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

                  4.

                  The fourth plea in law is based on a breach of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state sufficient reasons, first, in that the European Commission imposed a two-year exclusion on Vialto, and, second, in that the Commission proceeded to publish information of that exclusion on its website.


title: Case T-93/16: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark VANGUARD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — Rheinmetall Waffe Munition v EUIPO (VANGUARD)
      (Case T-93/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VANGUARD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH (Südheide, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2), concerning the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VANGUARD.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 November 2015 (Case R 69/2015-2);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case T-539/18: Action brought on 15 September 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/82

      Action brought on 15 September 2018 — Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet v Commission
      (Case T-539/18)
      (2018/C 427/109)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Quart de Poblet (Quart de Poblet, Spain) (represented by: B. Sanchis Piqueras, J. Rodríguez Pellitero, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  declare that the applicant has correctly complied with its contractual obligations under the contracts;

                  —

                  find that, it is, therefore, entitled to the funding in accordance with those contracts;

                  —

                  declare that the European Commission’s claim for the repayment of certain amounts by the Diego Project and by the SEED Project is unfounded and inadmissible;

                  —

                  annul the debit notes or, in any event, declare them unlawful;

                  —

                  order the European Commission to repay the applicant the sums claimed which have been paid by the latter;

                  —

                  in the alternative, find, in the amount that it deems appropriate, the sums claimed by the Commission to be eligible and/or appropriate funding;

                  —

                  in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging an incorrect classification of the costs by the European Commission.

                              —

                              The applicant claims that, by not respecting the terms of the contracts, the European Commission incorrectly classified the costs as direct or indirect and/or not chargeable, based on its auditors’ report, requiring the applicant to repay the funding received for the implementation of the DIEGO and SEED projects.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission incorrectly quantified the costs.

                              —

                              The applicant contests that quantification as being incorrect in that it does not respect the terms in that regard in the contracts.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with its contractual obligations.

                              —

                              According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to comply with the terms of the contracts by making an incorrect classification and quantification of the costs charged and continues to fail to comply, in spite of the arguments and evidence presented in the adversarial procedure, thereby demonstrating bad faith.


title: Case C-555/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 August 2018 — K.N.K. v V.A.S., E.E.K.

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 August 2018 — K.N.K. v V.A.S., E.E.K.
      (Case C-555/18)
      (2018/C 427/20)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Sofiyski rayonen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: K.N.K.

         Debtors: V.A.S., E.E.K.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is a payment order for a monetary claim under Article 410 of the Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code; GPK) which has not yet acquired the force of res judicata an authentic instrument within the meaning of Article 4(10) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014?

                  2.

                  If a payment order under Article 410 GPK is not an authentic instrument, must separate proceedings in accordance with Article 5(a) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 be initiated by application outside the proceedings under Article 410 GPK?

                  3.

                  If a payment order under Article 410 GPK is an authentic instrument, must the court issue its decision within the period laid down in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 if a provision of national law states that periods are suspended during judicial vacations?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2014 L 189, p. 59).


title: Case T-545/18: Action brought on 11 September 2018 — YL v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/83

      Action brought on 11 September 2018 — YL v Commission
      (Case T-545/18)
      (2018/C 427/110)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: YL (represented by: P. Yon, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul his removal from the 2017 promotions list;

                  —

                  order his retroactive promotion as from 1 January 2017;

                  —

                  award him compensation for the damage — estimated in the amount of EUR 100 000 — suffered as a result of the contested measures: the number of days and amount of energy expended in respect of the present action and preparation thereof, overcoming the feeling of being rejected, ostracised and persecuted by an authority supposedly required to have regard to the welfare of its members of staff and have, if not a benevolent attitude towards them, then at least a neutral one;

                  —

                  order the reimbursement of his lawyer’s and legal fees in the amount of EUR 10 000, and

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the appointing authority when it based its refusal to promote the applicant on a previously imposed penalty, when that penalty had already affected the applicant’s career by a relegation in step. Moreover, the contested decision was allegedly adopted on the ground that the penalty was related to the applicant’s conduct while on active duty, whereas the decision to impose a penalty of 2016 indicated that the acts in question were totally unconnected to the applicant’s duties and responsibilities.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging abuse of powers and process by the appointing authority when it used its power of promotion to increase the penalty imposed in 2016 and used the promotion procedure to circumvent the limits provided for in the Staff Regulations in the event of deferment of advancement.


title: Case T-634/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Pint v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 — Refusal of access — Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality — Overriding public interest)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/61

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — Pint v Commission
      (Case T-634/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353 - Refusal of access - Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest)
      (2018/C 427/80)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Anikó Pint (Göd, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

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

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 1 June and 17 July 2017 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to EU Pilot procedure No 8572/16 CHAP(2015) 00353.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Anikó Pint to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case T-328/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Paice v EUIPO — Blackmore (DEEP PURPLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE — Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) — Rules governing common-law action for passing-off — No likelihood of misrepresentation)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Paice v EUIPO — Blackmore (DEEP PURPLE)
      (Case T-328/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation)
      (2018/C 427/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Ian Paice to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-547/18: Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Teeäär v ECB

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/84

      Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Teeäär v ECB
      (Case T-547/18)
      (2018/C 427/111)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 27 February 2018 by which the applicant’s application for support for transition to a career outside the ECB was rejected;

                  —

                  if need be, annul the decision of the Executive Board dated 3 July 2018 rejecting the special appeal directed by the applicant against the decision of the Executive Board of 27 February 2018;

                  —

                  grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he allegedly suffered consisting in the career transition support financial package, estimated at EUR 101 447, increased by late interest calculated at the main refinancing rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 percentage points per annum;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the ECB Staff Rules, in that this rule is said to infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality; the contested decision is, moreover, flawed by a manifest error of appreciation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules in that this rule is said to discriminate based on age and thus contravene Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. (1)

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, that the contested decision is illegal due to a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, the infringement of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules.

         (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)


title: Case T-344/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE — Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law action for passing-off — No likelihood of misrepresentation — Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
      (Case T-344/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation - Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Richard Hugh Blackmore to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-548/18: Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Helbert v EUIPO

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/85

      Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Helbert v EUIPO
      (Case T-548/18)
      (2018/C 427/112)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection board; and

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the composition and consistency of the Selection Board presented irregularities, directly resulting in a lack of coherence of the evaluation and a violation of the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment and objectivity of the evaluations, in breach of articles 3.1 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board did not undertake a comparative assessment of the candidate, in breach of the obligation to observe the principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and objectivity of the evaluation, according to art. 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance in the ‘specific competency-based interview’.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board infringed the Notice of Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 as well as principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and the objectivity of the evaluation.

         (1)  OJ 2017 C 9 A, p. 1


title: Case C-567/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others
      (Case C-567/18)
      (2018/C 427/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

         Defendants: Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l., Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l., Amazon EU S.a.r.l.

         Question referred

      Does a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without having knowledge of that infringement, stock those goods for the purpose of offering them or putting them on the market, if it is not that person himself but rather the third party alone which intends to offer the goods or put them on the market? (1)

         (1)  Interpretation of Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and interpretation of Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).


title: Case T-345/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE — Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law action for passing-off — Goodwill — Breach of formal requirements — Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
      (Case T-345/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - Goodwill - Breach of formal requirements - Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 880/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Richard Hugh Blackmore to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-697/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/62

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2018 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)
      (Case T-697/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark COOKING CHEF GOURMET - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/81)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by M. Arnott and A. Nicholls, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 (Case R 231/2017-1) concerning the application for registration of the word sign COOKING CHEF GOURMET as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders De Longhi Benelux to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case T-463/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aids — Reductions and exclusions for failure to comply with the rules on cross compliance — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Proportionality)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2018 — Portugal v Commission
      (Case T-463/16) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aids - Reductions and exclusions for failure to comply with the rules on cross compliance - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Proportionality)
      (2018/C 427/54)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 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 173, p. 59) insofar as it relates to the Portuguese Republic.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-712/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GN Laboratories — Earlier EU word mark GNC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/62

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN Laboratories)
      (Case T-712/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GN Laboratories - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/82)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2017 (Case R 2358/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment Co. and C. Ntolas.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Christos Ntolas to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case T-546/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Adjustment of remuneration — Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 — Salary slip — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission
      (Case T-546/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Adjustment of remuneration - Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Salary slip - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Marina Tataram (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno initially, then F. Moyse, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara initially, then G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga initially, then M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s remuneration in respect of May 2014, as given specific expression in the salary slip for that month sent to her on 15 May 2014, which is the first salary slip to apply Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Marina Tataram to pay the costs.

                  3.

                  Declares that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-606/18: Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/102

      Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Universität Koblenz-Landau v EACEA
      (Case T-606/18)
      (2018/C 427/135)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Universität Koblenz-Landau (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: C. von der Lühe and I. Felder, lawyers)

         Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreement 2012-3075/001-001 in the amount of EUR 22 454,22 made by letter of the defendant of 8 August 2018 under reference EACEA/A4/RR-am D (2018) 011591 have no basis;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 41 408,15 plus interest at the rate of 9 percentage points above the base rate of the European Central Bank as from 30 March 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  Lack of full recognition of reimbursable costs notwithstanding the submission of supporting evidence.

                  2.

                  Lack of reasoning, or insufficient reasoning, for the refusal to recognise reimbursable costs.


title: Case T-736/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/63

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT)
      (Case T-736/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/83)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 (Case R 2225/2016-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign FLEXCUT as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Lincoln Global, Inc., to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-615/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB (Civil service — Personnel of the EIB — Psychological harassment — Total and permanent disability — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB
      (Case T-615/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Psychological harassment - Total and permanent disability - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: PD (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, in essence, an order that the EIB compensate the applicant for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment at the hands of his line manager and the failure on the part of the EIB to take appropriate measures to address that situation and to protect his health.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Orders PD and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-45/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-820/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Alfrisa — Earlier EU figurative mark Frinsa F — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/64

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Alimentos Friorizados (Alfrisa)
      (Case T-820/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Alfrisa - Earlier EU figurative mark Frinsa F - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/84)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, S.A. (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alimentos Friorizados, SA (Barberá del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: S. de Nadal Arce, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 (Case R 956/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste and Alimentos Friorizados.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Frinsa del Noroeste, S.A. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case C-573/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C GmbH & Co. KG v Z Tax Office

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C GmbH & Co. KG v Z Tax Office
      (Case C-573/18)
      (2018/C 427/22)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant and Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: C GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant and Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Z Tax Office

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a producer organisation within the meaning of Article 11(1) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Regulation No 2200/96) (1) supplies goods to the producers that are its members and receives for this from the producers a payment which does not cover the purchase price,

                              a)

                              is an exchange with an extra cash charge deemed to exist because the producers, in return for the supply, have contractually undertaken vis-a-vis the producer organisation to supply fruit and vegetables to the producer organisation for the duration of the earmarking period, with the consequence that the taxable amount of the supply is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers?

                              b)

                              is the entirety of the amount which the operational fund actually pays to the producer organisation for the supply a ‘subsidy directly linked to the price of such supplies’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC), (2) with the consequence that the taxable amount also encompasses the financial assistance within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 2200/96 which has been granted to the operational fund on the basis of an operational programme?

                  2.

                  If, on the basis of the answer to question 1, only the payments made by the producers, but not the supply obligation and the financial assistance, are to be taken as the taxable amount: under the circumstances specified in question 1, does Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC preclude a national special measure based on Article 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC such as Paragraph 10(5)(1) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax; ‘the UStG’), according to which the taxable amount of the supplies to the producers is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers because the producers are related parties?

                  3.

                  If question 2 is answered in the negative: is this also the case if the producers have a full right of deduction because the capital goods are subject to adjustments of deductions (Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC)?

         (1)  OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-423/17: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/103

      Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
      (Case T-423/17) (1)

      (2018/C 427/136)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case C-574/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C-eG v Z Tax Office

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2018 — C-eG v Z Tax Office
      (Case C-574/18)
      (2018/C 427/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: C-eG

         Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Z Tax Office

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a producer organisation within the meaning of Article 11(1) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Regulation No 2200/96) (1) supplies goods to the producers that are its members and receives for this from the producers a payment which does not cover the purchase price,

                              a)

                              is an exchange with a cash supplement deemed to exist because the producers, in return for the supply, have contractually undertaken vis-a-vis the producer organisation to deliver fruit and vegetables to the producer organisation for the duration of the earmarking period, with the consequence that the taxable amount of the supply is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers?

                              b)

                              is the entirety of the amount which the operational fund actually pays to the producer organisation for the supply a ‘subsidy directly linked to the price of such supplies’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC), (2) with the consequence that the taxable amount also encompasses the financial assistance within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 2200/96 which has been granted to the operational fund by the competent authorities on the basis of an operational programme?

                  2.

                  If, on the basis of the answer to question 1, only the payments made by the producers, but not the supply obligation and the financial assistance, are to be taken as the taxable amount: under the circumstances specified in question 1, does Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC preclude a national special measure based on Article 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC such as Paragraph 10(5)(1) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax; ‘the UStG’), according to which the taxable amount of the supplies to the producers is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers because the producers are related parties?

                  3.

                  If the answer to question 2 is in the negative: is this also the case if the producers have a full right of deduction because the capital goods are subject to adjustments of deductions (Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC)?

         (1)  OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-579/17: Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Wall Street Systems UK v ECB

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/103

      Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Wall Street Systems UK v ECB
      (Case T-579/17) (1)

      (2018/C 427/137)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-578/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 14 September 2018 — Energiavirasto

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 14 September 2018 — Energiavirasto
      (Case C-578/18)
      (2018/C 427/24)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Energiavirasto

         Other parties: A, Caruna Oy

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a person who is a consumer customer of a network company and who has brought a case concerning the network company before the national regulatory authority is to be regarded as an ‘affected party’ within the meaning of paragraph 17 of the article mentioned, which is affected by the decision of the regulatory authority and is therefore authorised to file an appeal at a national court against a decision affecting the network company made by the national regulatory authority?

                  2.

                  If the person designated in the first question is not to be regarded as an ‘affected party’ within the meaning of Article 37 of Electricity Market Directive 2009/72/EC, does a consumer customer in a position like that of the appellant in the main proceedings have a right on any other legal basis under EU law to be involved before the regulatory authority in the treatment of a request made thereby for the introduction of a measure or to have the case reviewed by a national court, or is this question governed by national law?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Case T-17/18: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Delfant-Hoylaerts v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/103

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — Delfant-Hoylaerts v Commission
      (Case T-17/18) (1)

      (2018/C 427/138)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-579/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12
      (Case C-579/18)
      (2018/C 427/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants and respondents: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

         Defendants and appellants: QC, Comida paralela 12

         Question referred

      Does Article 79 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the EU Customs Code (1) preclude national legislation, such as that implemented by Article 266 of the General Law of 18 July 1977 on customs and excise duties, in the case of the unlawful importation into the customs territory of the European Union of goods subject to import duties, from making the person civilly liable for the person who has committed that offence — in which the person civilly liable did not participate — jointly and severally liable for the customs debt?

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.


title: Case T-129/18: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/103

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)
      (Case T-129/18) (1)

      (2018/C 427/139)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-581/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2018 — RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Others
      (Case C-581/18)
      (2018/C 427/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant and appellant: RB

         Defendants and respondents: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IARD S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the prohibition of discrimination under Article 18(1) TFEU directed not only at the EU Member States and the Union institutions, but also at private parties (direct third-party effect of Article 18(1) TFEU)?

                  2.

                  If the first question should be answered in the negative and Article 18(1) TFEU is not applicable to relations between private parties: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that this provision precludes restricting cover to cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories because the competent French authority, the Bureau central de tarification (central pricing office), did not object to the corresponding clause, even though that clause is contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU because it involves indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality?

                  3.

                  If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Under what conditions can indirect discrimination be justified in cases of third-party effect? In particular: Can territorial restriction of insurance cover to cases of damage occurring within a certain EU Member State be justified with the argument of restriction of the liability obligation of the insurance company and the premium level if the relevant insurance policies at the same time provide that, in the event of serial damages, the cover per case of damage and the cover per insurance year are limited in terms of amount?

                  4.

                  If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 18(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that if, contrary to Article 18(1) TFEU, the insurer has only settled claims in cases of damage occurring in metropolitan France and the French overseas territories, it is prohibited from objecting that payment could not take place because the maximum cover amount was already reached, if the case of damage occurred outside of those territories?


title: Case T-339/18: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2018 — Enterprise Holdings v EUIPO (E PLUS)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/104

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2018 — Enterprise Holdings v EUIPO (E PLUS)
      (Case T-339/18) (1)

      (2018/C 427/140)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-582/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by Viscas Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-422/14: Viscas v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/19

      Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by Viscas Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-422/14: Viscas v Commission
      (Case C-582/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Viscas Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in T-422/14, Viscas Corp. v Commission, in so far as it rejected the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as regards the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas and ordered Viscas to pay the costs;

                  —

                  annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final (1) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas at EUR 34 992 000;

                  —

                  set the amount of the fine imposed on Viscas by reason of the infringement established in Article 1 of that decision at EUR 19 595 520;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, Viscas relies on a single plea in law alleging that the General Court’s judgment breaches the principle of equal treatment by upholding the methodology for determining the relevant value of sales, based on Point 18 of the Fining Guidelines (2), applied by the Commission in the contested decision. This methodology provides a substantial discriminatory advantage to the producers involved in both the European cartel and the international cartel configurations of the infringement as compared to those involved only in the international configuration. The determination of the producers’ respective contribution to the infringement indeed takes no account of the European cartel configuration and thus considerably undervalues the weight in the infringement of the producers involved in both cartel configurations, in effect rewarding them for being involved in two cartels rather than one by imposing on them fines which are on average 44 % lower than if the infringement had been limited to the European cartel configuration.

         (1)  Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

         (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)